Mac G6 anytime soon?

[Sun Baked]

Of course that chip is probably like the G5 where it runs too hot to be in a normal desktop or notebook, and uses a lot of power compared to intel chips or earlier PPC chips.

Not really, the G5 was a Power4 derivative.

The major reason Apple bailed was IBM killing the Power5 desktop derivative.

Yet they may be coming out with a Power6 desktop derivative. Have to update those game boxes. 🙄

So there is the chip with the best chance of being named G6 or G7 under Apple old scheme had they stayed ... but Apple left and the Gx names ended. 😛

 

[disconap]

I thought the main reasons Apple dropped the PPC line were that IBM couldn't commit to meet ship dates, missed development deadlines for a laptop chip, and that the cost of Intel chips is much, much lower (not to mention cooling and power solutions easier for a consumer machine)...

The PPC chip will continue, just not in Apples. Or likely, in any other consumer machine. PPC chips are used for things like traffic signal systems and satellites.

 

[Sun Baked]

I thought the main reasons Apple dropped the PPC line were that IBM couldn't commit to meet ship dates, missed development deadlines for a laptop chip, and that the cost of Intel chips is much, much lower (not to mention cooling and power solutions easier for a consumer machine)...

The PPC chip will continue, just not in Apples. Or likely, in any other consumer machine. PPC chips are used for things like traffic signal systems and satellites.

After the PowerPC 970 became a sales dud, IBM canceled everything after it.

The road map became a dead end. Was either last in line for technology to update the PPC970 line, adopt their game box CPU, or pay for their own CPU development.

Apple got sucked down the IBM golden brick road, which quickly turned to crap. All because the chip was too complex for the average R&D dept, heck you needed another PPC CPU just to start the darn thing.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Power PC died.

PowerPC is old technology which is no longer being made. Intel is the future. The old days of G3, G4 and G5 did make branding simpler. In a few years when things get so complicated by Core this and Xeon that and Extreme this and Duo 5 that...they might come up with a simpler branding method. Who knows? But I can promise PowerPC is a dead platform forever.

 

[FF_productions]

But I can promise PowerPC is a dead platform forever.

For the Macintosh at least.

There are PowerPC chips inside the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3.

 

[disconap]

Edit because I had the wrong quote:

But I can promise PowerPC is a dead platform forever.

Check your facts, IBM is still R&Ding PowerPC chips:

[ibm]has set to work on a Power7 design that should arrive around 2010 with, oh, four to eight cores.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/13/ibm_q7_chip/

PowerPC chips are still in use and development (in everything from nuclear subs to your PS3). Apple abandoned them because Intel cheaps are cheaper, ship in larger quantities, and offer faster turnover to new generations (to appease tech-heads)...

 

[Sun Baked]

Check your facts, IBM is still R&Ding PowerPC chips:

And the IBM PowerPC 9XX Microprocessors shipping product is basically still, the Power4-based 970.

Apple needed the next generation now years ago, and IBM R&D still hasn't delivered the next generation Power5-based 9xx chip yet. Though they may have announced a Power6-based chip not long ago, long after they told apple the follow up chips were dead.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Power6 is an interesting design; radically different from Power5, or really anything else on the desktop right now. I'd be interested to see how it performs both on existing desktop(*) software, and on software recompiled to adapt to its quirks (lack of out of order execution being the primary one, but also not having to schedule around the 2 cycle integer latency thing on the Power4/5).

Sadly, like its predecessor, it costs a frickin' fortune and requires some pretty amazing motherboard infrastructure to support (Power5 had what, 5k pins? more?).


*: server benchmarks are easy to come by, but I doubt we'll ever see useful desktop ones/

 

[fredd500]

Someone mentioned an HD monitor? The 30" Apple Cinema Display is 2550 wide x 1600 high or something like that. Considering "Full HD" is 1080 high, 1600 already blows that out of the water.

 

[Sdashiki]

Someone mentioned an HD monitor? The 30" Apple Cinema Display is 2550 wide x 1600 high or something like that. Considering "Full HD" is 1080 high, 1600 already blows that out of the water.

Um, off topic I guess...

but, that FULL HD would look a little crappier on your nice 30" compared to an actual 1080 resolution HDTV...because it is being blown up. 😎

Same reason when you view a DVD on your computer, full screen, it looks like crap compared to your HUGE tv in the living room. One is being blown up, the other in full resolution.

 

[thechidz]

Has anyone mentioned that the G series is now Mac Pro yet?😛

 

[Kosh66]

PowerPC is old technology which is no longer being made. Intel is the future. The old days of G3, G4 and G5 did make branding simpler. In a few years when things get so complicated by Core this and Xeon that and Extreme this and Duo 5 that...they might come up with a simpler branding method. Who knows? But I can promise PowerPC is a dead platform forever.

Sorry, but your wrong, it's neither old nor dead. It may not be what Apple is using in their new computers, but PowerPC chips are still manufactured and used for other computers and uses. New PowerPC designs will be made, just not for Apple.

 

[CWallace]

Does anyone know, if or when Apple is going to come out with a Mac G6 or something similar?

Apple decided to go with the P6 ("Pentium 6") instead of the G6. 🙂

 

[California]

The Apple pr just a few years ago on Intel vs PPC was that Intel chips were crap. Cheap crap. The length of service on the PPC machines -- I'm thinking of the G3 iMacs particularly -- is still amazing. Were PPC chips just as vulnerable to failure as the Intel chips? What was the deal with PPC chips vs Intel in terms of quality and, I still don't understand, in terms of speed architecture?

For example, how people used to say a PPC chip, while numerically lower, was three times as fast as Pentium chip?

I have no idea about CPU architecture, just asking what the differences were and what the quality argument was all about back in the day.

 

[Pressure]

The Apple pr just a few years ago on Intel vs PPC was that Intel chips were crap. Cheap crap. The length of service on the PPC machines -- I'm thinking of the G3 iMacs particularly -- is still amazing. Were PPC chips just as vulnerable to failure as the Intel chips? What was the deal with PPC chips vs Intel in terms of quality and, I still don't understand, in terms of speed architecture?

For example, how people used to say a PPC chip, while numerically lower, was three times as fast as Pentium chip?

I have no idea about CPU architecture, just asking what the differences were and what the quality argument was all about back in the day.

Generally there are more deciding factors about performance of a processor design than the clock speed.

What people should really be looking at is Instructions Per Cycle or IPC for short. This is an indication of how much work a given processor can do per cycle and that should reflect its performance.

In other words, a slower processor design with a higher IPC can be just as fast as a faster processor design with a lower IPC.

You can read more at wiki about IPC.

Other factors are the amount of cache where a processor stores frequently used data for faster access, the speed at which it can communicate with the rest of the system (hard drives and system memory), be it through a Front Side Bus (FSB for short) or other communication link.

Many other things apply but these are the major ones.

 

[disconap]

And the IBM PowerPC 9XX Microprocessors shipping product is basically still, the Power4-based 970.

Apple needed the next generation now years ago, and IBM R&D still hasn't delivered the next generation Power5-based 9xx chip yet. Though they may have announced a Power6-based chip not long ago, long after they told apple the follow up chips were dead.

Totally. IBM wasn't keeping up with how quickly Apple wanted to progress. If Apple had stuck with PPC, development might have been faster (the demand and profit incentive driving it), but the "generation" jumps wouldn't have pleased Apple, as they make a ton of money on people who immediately buy any new gen machine they release. If they only have a new gen, or even a significant performance increase, every couple of years, they lose money. Plus the lack of a viable mobile G5 chip hurt IBM quite a bit as far as Apple was concerned, though I read an article just after the intel move was announced saying IBM was close to developing a mobile G5 chip. Still too little too late.

The intel move was overall smart, but I am still amazed at the performance of my G5 4 years after it was released (I bought a used 2X2gHz first gen about 8 months ago). It still easily competes with comparable intel models (dual 2gHz range; obviously it gets its ass kicked by the quads). The PPC is a good line IMO, but I can see the practical reasons to move to a more widely used (and developed) platform.

 

[0007776]

The Apple pr just a few years ago on Intel vs PPC was that Intel chips were crap. Cheap crap. The length of service on the PPC machines -- I'm thinking of the G3 iMacs particularly -- is still amazing. Were PPC chips just as vulnerable to failure as the Intel chips? What was the deal with PPC chips vs Intel in terms of quality and, I still don't understand, in terms of speed architecture?

For example, how people used to say a PPC chip, while numerically lower, was three times as fast as Pentium chip?

I have no idea about CPU architecture, just asking what the differences were and what the quality argument was all about back in the day.

A few years ago Intel Chips were bad, but then they changed their archetecture, which IBM did not do. The P4 had a lot of the same problems as the G5 which is why intel changed the archetecture to their current one.

 

[CavemanUK]

You should also not underestimate the fact that it can now run windows and windows apps.. This has convinced a lot of switchers to try macs without losing the ability to run needed software.

Switching to Intel was a very clever move

 

[CavemanUK]

Sorry, but your wrong, it's neither old nor dead. It may not be what Apple is using in their new computers, but PowerPC chips are still manufactured and used for other computers and uses. New PowerPC designs will be made, just not for Apple.

Very true... Xbox 360's use PowerPC's... Like you said, its just not for Apple anymore.

 

[disconap]

Generally there are more deciding factors about performance of a processor design than the clock speed.

What people should really be looking at is Instructions Per Cycle or IPC for short. This is an indication of how much work a given processor can do per cycle and that should reflect its performance.

In other words, a slower processor design with a higher IPC can be just as fast as a faster processor design with a lower IPC.

You can read more at wiki about IPC.

Other factors are the amount of cache where a processor stores frequently used data for faster access, the speed at which it can communicate with the rest of the system (hard drives and system memory), be it through a Front Side Bus (FSB for short) or other communication link.

Many other things apply but these are the major ones.

All of this is true. Some of the top ranking supercomputers clock under 1gHz. It's the combined number of channels of the clusters of servers and processors that delivers the performance.

That's why the G4s were originally classed as supercomputers; the number of channels, not the speed of the processor.

 

[Catfish_Man]

All of this is true. Some of the top ranking supercomputers clock under 1gHz. It's the combined number of channels of the clusters of servers and processors that delivers the performance.

That's why the G4s were originally classed as supercomputers; the number of channels, not the speed of the processor.

Actually that's because the definition was silly and out of date. Made a nice marketing slogan though.

 

[cohibadad]

I'm still waiting for a G5 laptop

 

[JNB]

Thread Dead™

 

[disconap]

Actually that's because the definition was silly and out of date. Made a nice marketing slogan though.

True, true. I think it was just the timing of the Yikes and Sawtooth, as the later models, while faster and more advanced, weren't classed as supercomputers.

I think it's neat that G5 clusters still pop up in the top 500 supercomputer list (though they've fallen into the 400s these days)..

 

[disconap]

I'm still waiting for a G5 laptop

The tech is, allegedly, available. Build one!