Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

If Apple was still trying, could they make a PowerBook/iBook G5 by now?

Sure they could. They could have put a G5 laptop out back in the day too, but it would be crap.


x86 has plenty of advantages:
  • intel has the best fabs in the world - whatever you may think of the architecture's history, fact is, it works and in terms of cpu throughput per watt, it is right up there (for cpus that have anywhere near the performance)
  • x86 sells way more cpus, and gets "economy of scale"
  • the powerpc was unfortunately not competitive in the mobile arena, and IBM/Motorola didn't care about the tiny market that apple had in that sector enough to rectify that
  • having cpu/architecture in common with PCs means you can do things like bootcamp, get better driver support from third party hardware OEMs who aim thair hardware primarily at the PC, etc
 
There was a very power efficient dual G4 chips that could beat some G5's that apple would have been able to use in laptops - LINK and some people think g4's are more reliable and generally better than G5's.

Specs:
CPU: Dual e600 Power Architecture core, up to 1.5GHz each, 2.3MIPS/MHz
Cache:L1: 32kB I/D L2: 1MB with ECC
Alti Vec Engine
Memory Controller: Dual 64b DDR2, UP TO 600MHz WITH ECC
Fabric Interface:Serial RapidIO®, 1x/4x at up to 2.5Gb/s per lane
Local I/O Interface: Dual PCI Express, x1/x2/x4/x8, 2.0Gb/s per lane
Voltage:1.1V
Reliability:10 yrs at 105°C
Technology:90nm silicon-on-insulator (SOI)
Package:1023-in HiCTE ceramic 33mm x 33mm
 
Last edited:
I do not think so, maybe the new product named Powerbook/iBook G4S :) as the apple do not update its powerbook name for so long years.
 
for that to even be possible two things would have to happen
1 there would need to be great strides in battery technology
2 there would need to be great strides in microprocessor cooling technology
 
Intell said:
There was a company called PA-Semi that was nearing completion of a lower power, low heat output version of the G5 chip in late 2005.
Click to expand...

Since there is now a computer with that P6T chip on sale (don't even ask unless prepared to pay serious money) we can now conclude:

- the chip never went beyond (2x)1.8GHz
- it was beaten running blender under Linux by my own 2x1.8GHz QuickSilver (with much slower RAM)

Read:
It would have been a nice DualCore version of the latest 1.67GHz (which did beat the P6T in the same tests when only 1 core was used) or even a MacMini. But this would have lastes for only 1 generation (year).
In terms of new iMacs or PMacs it would allready been a downgrade to the 2005 models.
 
Bug-Creator said:
Since there is now a computer with that P6T chip on sale (don't even ask unless prepared to pay serious money) we can now conclude:

- the chip never went beyond (2x)1.8GHz
- it was beaten running blender under Linux by my own 2x1.8GHz QuickSilver (with much slower RAM)

Read:
It would have been a nice DualCore version of the latest 1.67GHz (which did beat the P6T in the same tests when only 1 core was used) or even a MacMini. But this would have lastes for only 1 generation (year).
In terms of new iMacs or PMacs it would allready been a downgrade to the 2005 models.
Click to expand...

Wait... do you know if there was a mobile version?
 
The CPU itself might be suitable for mobile, but that actual puter is about as big as a PMac G5 (and 100% fugly...).
 
lets just face it the g5s capabilities were way to advanced for its time period and I personaly think that a quad g3 powerbookk would have been a lot better than any g5 powerbook in terms of size and battery life.
 
The G5 CPU was in no way suitable for mobile use as bug creator suggests. All Apples portable power adapters at the time were 45 watts and even now they are only 65 watts. A single G5 CPU on it's own would overpower that almost and you still need a logic board and all the rest that makes up a laptop.

Also, the G5 was in no way "too advanced for it's time". It was simply a power hog and needed 500+ watt PSU's to power it. It's the most inefficient PowerPC chip ever made and possibly the all round least efficient RISC chip ever.

It really seems like you guys just make stuff up as you type.
 
Lil Chillbil said:
I was strictly referring to the g5 chips power consumption being to advanced for the 45watt power supplys of the day
Click to expand...

Thats not an issue of being too advanced at all. Thats an issue of a CPU being too inefficient to be used in a portable. It's actually the complete opposite of advanced.
 
zen.state said:
The G5 CPU was in no way suitable for mobile use as bug creator suggests. All Apples portable power adapters at the time were 45 watts and even now they are only 65 watts. A single G5 CPU on it's own would overpower that almost and you still need a logic board and all the rest that makes up a laptop.

It really seems like you guys just make stuff up as you type.
Click to expand...

Umm.... those PA-Semis are clocked at 25 Watts ( http://www.astahost.com/info/tipffi-semis-pwrficient-processors-breaks-core-duo-65w-dual-watts.html), which isn't too much, and possibly practical for a laptop, especially when you look at many gaming laptops out there.
 
Ariii said:
Umm.... those PA-Semis are clocked at 25 Watts ( http://www.astahost.com/info/tipffi-semis-pwrficient-processors-breaks-core-duo-65w-dual-watts.html), which isn't too much, and possibly practical for a laptop, especially when you look at many gaming laptops out there.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a chip that consumers never even got their hands on so no one can really confirm anything in terms of power consumption. The development of that chip obviously didn't go well since it caused Apple to back out and switch architectures instead.

To any of us this chip is a phantom so anything you guys assume is nothing but fantasy.
 
zen.state said:
You're talking about a chip that consumers never even got their hands on so no one can really confirm anything in terms of power consumption. The development of that chip obviously didn't go well since it caused Apple to back out and switch architectures instead.

To any of us this chip is a phantom so anything you guys assume is nothing but fantasy.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry! When did I assume anything?

Hmm... if that does work, it might be fun to mod one into a Macintosh Portable case .
Click to expand...




And I thought there might've been at least a chance, as a couple of articles have given a little information about it.
 
Last edited:
zen.state said:
The G5 CPU was in no way suitable for mobile use as bug creator suggests.
Click to expand...

Huh ??? When did I suggest that ????

Was talking bout the P6T which might have been suitable for mobile (no I don't have any reallife data on power-consumption).

And yes that chip can now be "bought" within a "new" computer, but that involves >3000$ and a big part of that as a prepayment 3-??? months before delievery....

What you get is an butt-ugly tower with a full-size ATX mobo and a SW-package easliy beaten by a similar SW package running on various G4 based Macs (and a few long discontinued custom mobos).
 
Power Mac G5: 2003 to 2006 (14 years ago) and yet here is this PowerPC forum where G5 Macs are still being used today. The G5 Macs (desktops only) can have 16 GB RAM and have decent speed compared to the crappy PCs (laptops) I am using today. I have a new PC laptop and it was very difficult to find one with an Ethernet plug and 16 GB RAM (it is only up-gradable to 24 GB.)

Fourteen years ago or so, I think Apple switched the Mac to Intel at the right time.

Today. Phones and tablets have overtaken laptops and desktops -- ARM-based and similar low-powered CPUs get "economy of scale."

I am impressed with the Apple M1 chip.
perf-trajectory_intel-apple-axx-anandtech.jpg


Intel is not in the mobile market. We often have different needs. I don't need bootcamp. I can't stand using Windows, and I really could care less about incompatible drivers for crappy 3rd party hardware. I haven't a clue about the weird nVidia icon on my new PC, maybe I am using the builtin Intel graphics, oh well.

The PowerPC lived on in game consoles.

If you want, you can buy a desktop with a modern PowerPC and load it with scads of RAM.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: psychicist, NikolaPPC, repairedCheese and 1 other person
mmphosis said:
Power Mac G5: 2003 to 2006 (14 years ago) and yet here is this PowerPC forum where G5 Macs are still being used today. The G5 Macs (desktops only) can have 16 GB RAM and have decent speed compared to the crappy PCs (laptops) I am using today. I have a new PC laptop and it was very difficult to find one with an Ethernet plug and 16 GB RAM (it is only up-gradable to 24 GB.)
Click to expand...
Really? It took me all of five minutes and the first one I investigated had both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
mmphosis said:
The G5 Macs (desktops only) can have 16 GB RAM and have decent speed compared to the crappy PCs (laptops) I am using today.
Click to expand...
Why are you using crappy machines in the first place? Any decent x86 system blows the G5 out of the water. In both performance and efficiency.

mmphosis said:
Fourteen years ago or so, I think Apple switched the Mac to Intel at the right time.
Click to expand...
For their desktops, yep. The laptops should have been switched much earlier. Like in 2003. Pentium M, anyone? The fact that they were still shipping G4 systems in 2005, let alone 2006, is nothing short of ridiculous.

mmphosis said:
Today. Phones and tablets have overtaken laptops and desktops -- ARM-based and similar low-powered CPUs get "economy of scale."
Click to expand...
How come the vast majority of desktops and laptops have AMD or Intel CPUs in them then? Personally, I couldn't care less about phones and tablets, I want a "real" desktop or laptop. Don't get me wrong - the M1 is impressive but doesn't hold a candle against e.g. a 16-core Ryzen.

laylow said:
I doubt it. Physics is physics. The G5 uses too much power and runs too hot.
Click to expand...
Who knows what a G5 built on today's processes would be like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alex_free
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back