May 18th? G5 Updates?

[thatwendigo]

What are you talking about? they just used the name Centrino there. It still uses the Pentium M processor, one of intel's most innovative NEW processors, ever. sure it's BASED on old stuff, just like the G5 is BASED on PPC architecture present in the G3 and G4... but no, you're mistaken if you think that's just a slightly revamped centrino processor in those notebooks.

I think it's my turn to ask what you're talking about here, shadow.

Ars talks about the Pentium-M "Centrino" processor, which I think you're getting confused with the Celeron when you say "you're mistaken if you think that's just a slightly revamped centrino processor in those notebooks."

To put it in short, sweet terms:
The Centrino is a P6-architecture chip (the line that drove everything from the Pentium Pro to the Pentium-III) with enhancement from P7-architechture (the Pentium-IV). To quote the reviewer at Ars, "Intel's standard line about the PM is that they took what they learned from the P4 and mixed it with the PIII, and that's true in a certain sense. But the best way to look at the PM is as an evolutionary advance of the P6 microarchitecture."

The Centrino is a modified Penitum-3, with added features and redesigned core, intended as a low-power, scalable mobile chip. It performs as well as the mainstream desktop chips on most applications because of the new additions you were loosely referring to. However, so does the 750vx.

Do you get it now?

Furthermore, I'm not saying that no one would ever revert to an old processor, never said that. Just not apple.maybe so... but why would they waste ALL that work to make a whole new laptop architecture to house the new 750vx and it's snazzy system bus when they are ultimately and soon going to need to put better, cooler running 970 processors in when they arrive in around a year or 18 months?

Who says that they "need" to put a 970 in the laptops at all? If anything, a lower-power solution is definitely the way to go, and it's almost always a better solution to take the Centrino route (start low-power and build up) than it is to try to force a desktop solution into the laptop. This is why the Centrino even exists, really... Apple was killing the PC market on low-power, small formfactor laptops because the P4-M is a power hog, and so is the Athlon-M and Athlon 64-M.

As it stands now, the Centrino is competitive in most areas, better in some, and shows that "backwards" isn't always bad. Hell, even Intel ate crow and had to start trying to dispell the megahertz myth.

So, once more... Why is the 970 necessary in a laptop?

it's foolish, just foolish.There you go talking about market forces... there's more to technology than market forces for one thing,

Incorrect. In technology, the only thing that really matters is market forces. You can have the best product in the world, but that doesn't mean you'll rule the roost.

Take a look at Apple, if you don't believe me.

and for another thing, no, they aren't. There is not one single popular laptop anywhere that has 2 CPUs.

Five years ago, there wasn't a single computer that used USB. Two years ago, there wasn't a mac that was nearly as across-the-board competitive with the PC world as the G5. Last year, there wasn't a mac that ran at 2.0ghz.

What will this year bring?

we will not see dual processors in laptops till they put dual core single CPUs in them, which is probably 2-3 years around the corner.

680k ought to be enough for everyone? That nobody's done it yet doesn't mean it can't be or won't be done soon.

market forces can't make you fit a camel in a needle's eye... and there's really no need to.

Oh, like the G5? It's not a laptop chip, was never intended to be a laptop chip, and you're trying to "fit a camel in a needle's eye" when you insist that big, sweaty dromedary should go in that tiny space.

Why not thread it with something intended for the job?

 

[gopher]

I disagree. They should release new models as soon as they are ready. I suspect the 3 GHz models will not be ready before the end of summer (though they might be announced at WWDC), so if we can get a bump now, let's do it. That's at least four months of 2.4 + GHz. Why hold it back?

Releasing new products as soon as they are "ready" is a recipe for disaster. Don't rush it Apple. Iron out the bugs before people start complaining of so many lemons you have change your name to Lemon.

 

[ThomasJefferson]

After waiting for the Powerbook updates for so long, I am now immune from getting my hopes up.
.
.
You will not tempt me with the promises of hardware updates.
Really.
.
.
I wonder if it could be the 3 GHz?

 

[ERayFree]

.

 

[duany]

Drupa

One significance to the May 18th date, that I don't think people know about is a printing industry show in germany called drupa. It happens every for years and is a hugh event for anyone even remotely connected to printing industry. Companies plan entire product development cycles around this event. I know my company has.

 

[Blackheart]

After waiting for the Powerbook updates for so long, I am now immune from getting my hopes up.
.
.
You will not tempt me with the promises of hardware updates.
Really.
.
.
I wonder if it could be the 3 GHz?

Yeah, I've been waiting for PM updates since MWSF 2004 in January and still nothing. Every other tuesday is rumored to be a "magic steve day." But instead, nothing shows. I quit believing the rumors by now.

 

[PowerMacMan]

Yeah, I've been waiting for PM updates since MWSF 2004 in January and still nothing. Every other tuesday is rumored to be a "magic steve day." But instead, nothing shows. I quit believing the rumors by now.

I'm so depressed... Need G5 3Ghz...

Words of inspiration?

 

[centauratlas]

Of course we don't need a 3 Ghz machine (well, maybe some of us do), but Steve said 3 in under a year. [/B]

When I got my Apple ][+, I got an extra 16K card with it. The sales guy said "what are you going to do with all that extra memory?" You won't need more than 32K let alone the 48K it comes with, let alone another 16K. That was a 1mhz machine. Oh and you could do disc ][ or tape. Disc was such a luxury. When we got a Trustor 10MB hard drive drive, that was nirvana.

No matter how much space in memory or on the drive and no matter how fast, you get new uses which use it all up.

I just got my 2GB RAM, 1.5ghz, 80GB drive 17 inch Powerbook today. 20 years from now we'll be saying: "We made do with 1.5ghz and 2GB RAM, and only 80GB of storage." "I remember when Apple was going to introduce their 3ghz machine and people were saying 'no one needs 3ghz'."

Ha ha ha. I am just pointing out how perspectives change...and boy do they change, but gradually enough so you don't really notice it until you look at what was state of the art 5 years or 10 years or 20 years before.

And there are plenty of things that dual 3GHz processors would be good for, we just aren't used to them yet. For example, could you have a snappy, graphical interface on a 1mhz 6502 (in the Apple ][, ][+)? Probably not. But the 68000 (in the 128k Mac) could handle one, but nothing like what we have now - it was black and white, small display, uni-Finder etc.

Same here, perhaps an improved voice interface or other improvements that will only be possible when we have even more CPU cycles to burn. Just like iMovie wasn't possible pre-PowerPC. Ditto for iDVD. Extra power means new applications.

I guess the point is that just because the current interface metaphor doesn't require it doesn't mean we won't have something better that does.

 

[centauratlas]

My bet is that there will be a slight speed bump with the addition of faster superdrives. It'll be to the speeds that are as fast as IBM can reliably make them quantity. E.g. probably 2.4 (perhaps 2.5 if we're lucky), 2.2 and 2.0. That will be sooner rather than later, but probably WWDC or before.

Then at the end of the summer (meeting his promise of September 2003, which revised his June 2003 "1 year" to be "1 year from Sept 2003's shipping of the G5") they'll do another bump even if they are shipping "in 6 to 8 weeks" meaning shipping in 8 to 10 weeks in any quantity. They might even just do: 3.0 (shipping 6-8 weeks), 2.6 (immediately) and 2.4 (immediately).

Apple knew last Sept that there was no way they'd hit 3.0 by June 2004 so Steve revised his statement to say "end of summer 2004" for 3ghz- e.g. late September.

Waiting from June 2003 to Sept 2004 to announce an update (besides the dual 1.8 or whatever) would be *way* out of character for Apple. That is 13 months, PLUS they'd have another 1-3 months to ship them. That would total 14 to 16 months which is so far out of the normal range that it is highly unlikely.

They'll do something between now and WWDC for sure. And it will be in the 2.4-2.2-2.0 area.

 

[wdlove]

Releasing new products as soon as they are "ready" is a recipe for disaster. Don't rush it Apple. Iron out the bugs before people start complaining of so many lemons you have change your name to Lemon.

I agree with you gopher, well said. That seems to be exactly the reason why the wait has been over six months. You should respect Steve's decision on waiting. I still think that hew will not disappoint us.

 

[shadowfax]

I think it's my turn to ask what you're talking about here, shadow.

Ars talks about the Pentium-M "Centrino" processor, which I think you're getting confused with the Celeron when you say "you're mistaken if you think that's just a slightly revamped centrino processor in those notebooks."

To put it in short, sweet terms:
The Centrino is a P6-architecture chip (the line that drove everything from the Pentium Pro to the Pentium-III) with enhancement from P7-architechture (the Pentium-IV). To quote the reviewer at Ars, "Intel's standard line about the PM is that they took what they learned from the P4 and mixed it with the PIII, and that's true in a certain sense. But the best way to look at the PM is as an evolutionary advance of the P6 microarchitecture."

The Centrino is a modified Penitum-3, with added features and redesigned core, intended as a low-power, scalable mobile chip. It performs as well as the mainstream desktop chips on most applications because of the new additions you were loosely referring to. However, so does the 750vx.

Do you get it now?

yes, damn intel and their stupid words, i confused Celeron and Centrino again. i think your point is still moot though. the M is based off the P3, but it's still got an assload of improvements that make it a very very different processor. the reason that intel reverted back to the P3 "philosophy" if you will is much more because the pentium 4 was a very misguided idea for a processor. you can't take it much further than they are, now up around 100 watts and what not.

Who says that they "need" to put a 970 in the laptops at all? If anything, a lower-power solution is definitely the way to go, and it's almost always a better solution to take the Centrino route (start low-power and build up) than it is to try to force a desktop solution into the laptop. This is why the Centrino even exists, really... Apple was killing the PC market on low-power, small formfactor laptops because the P4-M is a power hog, and so is the Athlon-M and Athlon 64-M.

When I say 970, i don't mean the one that you'll find in the Powermac. i am talking about future revisions wherein better power consumption will be a feature. IBM is committed to making the 970 a low power processor. they are developing power saving technologies and putting it on a smaller process already. That is the low power solution apple will use. Intel had to get centrino in because they were making 70+ watt processors in laptops. Apple does not have this problem.

As it stands now, the Centrino is competitive in most areas, better in some, and shows that "backwards" isn't always bad. Hell, even Intel ate crow and had to start trying to dispell the megahertz myth.

It doesn't show that backwards isn't always bad. it's a totally new processor. it's based on some older technology, but make no mistake that it is a very, very different processor. it's not called the Pentium 3M. it's the Pentium M.

So, once more... Why is the 970 necessary in a laptop?

read forum posts online. talk to powerbook users. everyone wants a G5 powerbook. that's why it's necessary. those are the market forces you're talking about.

Incorrect. In technology, the only thing that really matters is market forces. You can have the best product in the world, but that doesn't mean you'll rule the roost.

of course the market can f*** you over if you have an existing product, but market forces can't conjure new things into existence.

Take a look at Apple, if you don't believe me.

I see apple. they pioneer new markets, but jobs very very very very often refused to enter markets that would seem to be very doable: think of Newton, for a nice example.

680k ought to be enough for everyone? That nobody's done it yet doesn't mean it can't be or won't be done soon.

very nice altruism!

Oh, like the G5? It's not a laptop chip, was never intended to be a laptop chip, and you're trying to "fit a camel in a needle's eye" when you insist that big, sweaty dromedary should go in that tiny space. Why not thread it with something intended for the job?

The 750vx is not a laptop chip either. the 970 isn't even intended as a desktop chip. it's supposed to go in Blade servers and things like that. the G3 itself is a chip for imbedded devices like switches. why put that in a laptop? it's not specifically designed for one!

surprise! blad servers, like imbedded devices, use passive cooling. they have to have very low power chips. that's why the 750vx is ideal for a laptop. that's why the 970 will be before too long. that's why apple is going to hang onto the G4 and save their design money till they can spend it on making a G5 laptop that everyone wants, rather than making a dual processor laptop that would be schnazzy, but would still ultimately require them to redesign the powerbook yet again in a short period of time when the 970s become much better for laptops. then when we get Power5 derivatives in, maybe we'll have dual core CPUs. that's when we'll see "dual processor" laptops.

 

[Blackheart]

Then at the end of the summer (meeting his promise of September 2003, which revised his June 2003 "1 year" to be "1 year from Sept 2003's shipping of the G5") they'll do another bump even if they are shipping "in 6 to 8 weeks" meaning shipping in 8 to 10 weeks in any quantity. They might even just do: 3.0 (shipping 6-8 weeks), 2.6 (immediately) and 2.4 (immediately).

Apple knew last Sept that there was no way they'd hit 3.0 by June 2004 so Steve revised his statement to say "end of summer 2004" for 3ghz- e.g. late September.

When did he revise his statement? Because i distinctly remember jobs saying at WWDC 2003 "Within 12 months". That means June-June, not "whenever we ship those damn boxes till another 12 months".

Sorry if I sound annoyed but I'm frustrated about Apple's "pu55y-footing" about the subject and am starting to doubt their ability to fulfill the 3GHz promise.

 

[centauratlas]

"within a year" (links etc)

When did he revise his statement? Because i distinctly remember jobs saying at WWDC 2003 "Within 12 months". That means June-June, not "whenever we ship those damn boxes till another 12 months".

I've posted something similar about a dozen times, but here it is again:


Steve did indeed say "within twelve months" at WWDC (June 23, 2003). On June 23, 2003 he also said "we're at 2ghz now" when they really weren't at 2ghz until Sept. But, then he revised it at the G5 shipping and said "by the end of next summer" and that was on September 16, 2003.

In short, what he said was two things at two times (June 23, and Sept 16, 2003):
"We've committed before the end of next summer" to get the Power Mac G5 to 3GHz. That was September 16, 2003, see links below. "End of Summer" is roughly Sept 21-22, 2004. June 23, 2003, he said it would be at "3Ghz within 12 months."

It was never 100% clear if he meant 12 months from then or 12 months from release. However, given his Sept 2003 statements, and the fact that he said "we are at 2Ghz today", I think it meant from release. Clearly they were *not* at 2GHz in June 2003, they were announcing shipments of 2GHz coming in August-September. Anyway, he revised it to say "end of summer [2004]" in Sept of 2003.

June 23, links:
(http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/23/keynote/index.php?redirect=1082291566000 https://www.macrumors.com/wwdc2003.html)

Sept 16 links:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/09/16/liveupdate/index.php?redirect=1082291467000
and:
http://www.macminute.com/2003/09/16/appleexpo2
and:
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/features/powermacg5nextgeneration/

 

[mattmack]

One unsubstantiated rumor submission claims that PowerMac G5 updates will be seen on May 18th.

Few other hints at PowerMac updates have been reported.

Wow that's a nice birthday present for me

 

[ddtlm]

thatwendigo:

I definately agree with shadowfax on the G5 vs dual G4 laptop debate.

A single 750vx runs at 10-15w when going full bore, has power management that scales it down, possesses over twice the RAM bus of the G4, outperforms its predecessor at roughly 35-40% per clock, and is also a full 25% faster than the current G4s to being with.

Could you point out someplace where IBM has confirmed this 750vx? I can only find rumor sites talking about it, but perhaps Google is just being dense. In the absence of confirmation, to me this looks like just a daydream made up by people who thought IBM could do no wrong.

Who says that they "need" to put a 970 in the laptops at all? If anything, a lower-power solution is definitely the way to go, and it's almost always a better solution to take the Centrino route (start low-power and build up) than it is to try to force a desktop solution into the laptop.

Unlike Intel, IBM cannot afford to agressively develop two separate processor lines for these two markets (mobile, not mobile). I do not expect to see any significant upwards development of the 750 line, partly because the target market is small, partly because the 970 can fill in parts of that market, and partly because Moto has perfectly fine products established in that market already.

Additionally, the 400mhz DDR FSB you say the 750vx has would be exactly what Apple doesn't want: another FSB to design chipsets for.

 

[rdowns]

Mythical 750vx

Mr. MacPhisto posted this in the Motorola Roadmap thread:

Problem is that the people I know at IBM have said the VX project was dumped by Apple in January - due to IBM not being able to ramp up 90nm and the new offerings Motorola would have before the VX would see production (pushed back to late summer with the delays). The VX project is dead. IBM and Apple are working on a SOC project, but that may also be cancelled before the year is out.

 

[ddtlm]

rdowns:

Yeah but I actually don't believe it ever existed. Seems to me that someone probably made it up, then someone went ahead and "cancelled" their fiction. Everything I've read about the 750vx just doesn't make sense, reads like someone's wishful thinking, instead of a business plan. In my hunble opinion, it grew out of Moto-hating, out of G3-worship, and probably to some degree out of boredom.

 

[.a]

One significance to the May 18th date, that I don't think people know about is a printing industry show in germany called drupa. It happens every for years and is a hugh event for anyone even remotely connected to printing industry. Companies plan entire product development cycles around this event. I know my company has.

so, that's very interesting. though it would be something new to apple if they would release new powermacs for a european event (well okay, they did before with other products @ expo paris but not with that big impact).
for me, apple looks like a company that pushes its market in the usa extra strong and kind of forget the rest of the world. very sad ...

.a swiss guy waiting for its g5 rev.b

 

[ssamani]

So? All that says is that Apple has 8x Superdrives in enough quantity that they're moving them across the desktop line. It means nothing in terms of imminent release, because having optical drives doesn't mean that they have the chip supplies to move G5s yet.

I have to disagree. How often does Apple put higher spec components in their lower spec machines? Also if you hang out in these forums, everyone always asks for faster this and faster that, but I've never heard a call for faster SuperDrives in the eMac. They could have left a 4x one in the eMac updates and no-one who have batted an eyelid. You can burn a DVD faster on an eMac right now than you could an iMac and the specs, apart from the monitor are not that far apart. The already poor iMac sales will get completely hammered if it isn't updated soon. If iMac updates weren't imminent (and I didn't suggest that it would be an iMac G5, it could just be a G4 upgrade) then I don't see why Apple wouldn't hold off the eMac update or just include a lower spec SuperDrive.

The least I expect is an imminent iMac G4 update including 8x SuperDrives and a simple switch to 8x SuperDrives in the PM's, however I suspect it will be more and hope for the sake of their poor desktop sales that there will be an iMac G5 which they need and can do much more quickly than a PB G5.

 

[thatwendigo]

yes, damn intel and their stupid words, i confused Celeron and Centrino again. i think your point is still moot though. the M is based off the P3, but it's still got an assload of improvements that make it a very very different processor. the reason that intel reverted back to the P3 "philosophy" if you will is much more because the pentium 4 was a very misguided idea for a processor.

Incorrect.

Wikipedia says:
The Pentium M represents a radical departure for Intel, as it is not a low-power version of the desktop-oriented Pentium 4, but instead a heavily modified version of the Pentium III design (itself a modified form of the Pentium Pro. It is optimised for power efficiency, a vital characteristic for extending notebook computer battery life. Running with very low average power consumption and much less heat output than desktop processors, the Pentium M runs at a lower clock speed than the contemporary Pentium 4 desktop processor series, but with similar performance (e.g. a 1.6 GHz Pentium M can typically attain or exceed the performance of a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4).

Essentially, the Pentium M couples the execution core of the Pentium III with a Pentium 4 compatible bus interface, an improved instruction decoding/issuing front end, and twice as much cache: 64k primary (as compared to the PIII's 32k, the P4's 8k or the Athlon's 128k) and 1MB secondary (as compared with the 256k or 512k in the PIII, P4 and Athlon). The usually power-hungry secondary cache uses an innovative access method to avoid switching on any parts of it not actually being accessed. Other power saving methods include dynamically variable clock frequency and core voltage, allowing the Pentium M to run slowly (typically 600 MHz) when the system is idle in order to conserve energy.

It's the Penitum-3 core with a different frontend and a reworked cache.

you can't take it much further than they are, now up around 100 watts and what not.

Hence Dothan, or Centrino Revised.

When I say 970, i don't mean the one that you'll find in the Powermac. i am talking about future revisions wherein better power consumption will be a feature.

Then you're talking about something and using the wrong name for it. The PowerPC 970 is a distinct chip, as is the 970fx, and any further revisions will also be altered. There are strong rumors that we'll see a leap to the Power5 chips by next summer. Are those "970s," too?

IBM is committed to making the 970 a low power processor. they are developing power saving technologies and putting it on a smaller process already. That is the low power solution apple will use.

So we're waiting a while, then, until some magical innovation drops the 970 or the 970fx to 12-20 watts, brings the bus heat down equal with the G4's 133-167mhz, and also doesn't eat the battery alive. The G5 is best in dual processor configurations, and the single isn't a whole lot better than the G4 without the code being more optimized for it.

Intel had to get centrino in because they were making 70+ watt processors in laptops. Apple does not have this problem.

Which is so unlike the 50watts that a 2.0 970 originally put out!

The G5 is faster the the G4, and it's a nice design because it scales more easily, but don't think it's the wonder chip. It has issues, just like any other design, and one of those is heat output. For a PowerPC, it's pretty toasty.

It doesn't show that backwards isn't always bad. it's a totally new processor. it's based on some older technology, but make no mistake that it is a very, very different processor. it's not called the Pentium 3M. it's the Pentium M.

See above. I could call a G3 the G6, but that doesn't mean it's new, even if it were the 750vx and had similar improvements to the Centrino (which is actually not a bad comparison).

read forum posts online. talk to powerbook users. everyone wants a G5 powerbook. that's why it's necessary. those are the market forces you're talking about.

Firstly, it's irrelevant that "everyone" wants a G5 if it can't be done with the current standards at Apple. Also, most of the G5 fever is coming from people who don't really understand the differences at all, and who aren't really qualified to be saying what will and won't make their computer faster. Yes, it's a newer design, but it also chews power like no tomorrow. Those desktops have 600w power supplies, heat pipes on the ASIC, and even the 970fx 2.0ghz chips are still pulling 30-40w.

Secondly, those are not the market forces I'm talking about. I mean things like supply-side issues, economies of scale, and the need for Apple to find a cost-effective solution to the problem of Intel having stepped up and provided a halfway decent alternative for people who want light, fast, and power-efficient laptops.

I see apple. they pioneer new markets, but jobs very very very very often refused to enter markets that would seem to be very doable: think of Newton, for a nice example.

The Newton was killed around the rise of Palm, who has since been supplanted by other companies in many senses. Apple knows better than to compete in the lowend markets, because other people can always do things cheaper.

very nice altruism!The 750vx is not a laptop chip either. the 970 isn't even intended as a desktop chip. it's supposed to go in Blade servers and things like that. the G3 itself is a chip for imbedded devices like switches. why put that in a laptop? it's not specifically designed for one!

The 750vx, because of its increase in performance and price efficiency over the G4, makes a better choice than the hotter, more technologically demanding 970 or 970fx. For the kinds of laptops Apple makes, heat is the biggest concern, followed shortly after by battery draw, and both are answered better right now by the 750vx than the 970 or its derivatives.

This could change, but it hasn't yet.

that's why apple is going to hang onto the G4 and save their design money till they can spend it on making a G5 laptop that everyone wants, rather than making a dual processor laptop that would be schnazzy, but would still ultimately require them to redesign the powerbook yet again in a short period of time when the 970s become much better for laptops. then when we get Power5 derivatives in, maybe we'll have dual core CPUs. that's when we'll see "dual processor" laptops.

Please explain... How is a single G5 better than a dual processor machine that outperforms the previous duals? The G4 single 1.5ghz nearly matches the single G5 1.6ghz in some tasks, and the 750vx would be a full 25% higher clock on both of its processors. Start at the numbers for Final Cut renders that BareFeats published recently. A single 1.6 G5 is only 71% of the performance of a dual G4 1.42ghz, and the single 1.8 is 86% of the same processor. Now, expand the performance figures by an additional 25% (on FCP, it looks like the scale is roughly linear) for the extra clock, and then another 30% for clock-over-clock improvements. The result? A number that beats (362) the dual 2.0ghz G5 (514), without even factoring in that the faster RAM that the chip will be accessing.

To be fair, let's take 20% off of those numbers just to reflect design compromises in laptops and power management. You still get a very respectable result (523), which puts the portable on par with the desktops right now. What does a single 1.6 or 1.8 get on the same test? Respectively, they're 1123 and 938.

To go off in a different direction... Let's say that Freescale releases the e600 dual-cores. For the sake of argument, let's also say that they linearly scale and have no extra performance enhancements. That would mean the dual-core 2.0ghz e600 would pull down a respectable score of 562, which is still on par with the current top of the line desktops.

So, I still ask... Why a single processor laptop, if low-power duals could do so much more?

 

[thatwendigo]

Broken into two posts, because it wouldn't let me make it all one unit.

I definately agree with shadowfax on the G5 vs dual G4 laptop debate.

Interesting.

Where did I say anything about a dual G4?

Could you point out someplace where IBM has confirmed this 750vx? I can only find rumor sites talking about it, but perhaps Google is just being dense. In the absence of confirmation, to me this looks like just a daydream made up by people who thought IBM could do no wrong.

Kind of like the Motorola "roadmap" that claims all kinds of things that they've historically been unable or unwilling to deliver?

Unlike Intel, IBM cannot afford to agressively develop two separate processor lines for these two markets (mobile, not mobile).

2003 Revenues:
IBM $89,131,000,000
Intel $30,100,000,000

2003 Net Income:
IBM $7,584,000,000
Intel $3,100,000,000

Who doesn't have what?

I do not expect to see any significant upwards development of the 750 line, partly because the target market is small, partly because the 970 can fill in parts of that market, and partly because Moto has perfectly fine products established in that market already.

Ah, right... So the most successful PC chipmaker shouldn't have developed the Centrino, because the Penitum4-Mobile could fill in the laptop market? IBM looks to be getting serious about leveraging the PowerPC, and not just as an embedded processor as it's traditionally been.

Additionally, the 400mhz DDR FSB you say the 750vx has would be exactly what Apple doesn't want: another FSB to design chipsets for.

That makes absolutely no sense. Technology advances, things get faster, and you need to design around them. It wouldn't be another FSB, so much as the one that would supplant the one that's choking the G4 as it stands. If you rid yourself of a chip in favor of another, then you merely replace its needs with the newer ones.

Besides... Moving the G5 to the powerbook means a bus redesign, too. How is this at all relevant?

Mr. MacPhisto posted this in the Motorola Roadmap thread:

Problem is that the people I know at IBM have said the VX project was dumped by Apple in January - due to IBM not being able to ramp up 90nm and the new offerings Motorola would have before the VX would see production (pushed back to late summer with the delays). The VX project is dead. IBM and Apple are working on a SOC project, but that may also be cancelled before the year is out.

Hey, rdowns... What makes that any more credible than the rumors that the 750vx exists? Does MacPhisto have a record of reliable IBM information that would make him a good source, or is this just speculation, like what the rest of us are tossing around?

 

[rdowns]

Hey, rdowns... What makes that any more credible than the rumors that the 750vx exists? Does MacPhisto have a record of reliable IBM information that would make him a good source, or is this just speculation, like what the rest of us are tossing around?

Not a damn thing. It is no more credible than the mythical 750vx even existing.

 

[RandomDeadHead]

we will not see dual processors in laptops till they put dual core single CPUs in them, which is probably 2-3 years around the corner. market forces can't make you fit a camel in a needle's eye... and there's really no need to.

I beg to differ, I would give my left nut for a dual processor 17 inch PB, G4, G5, doesn't matter to me, just give me a second cpu.

Ahh, photoshoping while on the toilet, that would be the life!

Also, the other one thing, their will be NO new powermacs before WWDC, cuz Mr. Charlie told me so.

 

[7254278]

Honestly i dont see new g5's before wwdc and i got a frien at apple consulting who said they will be ready in mid may but wont be announced until wwdc. He also said there might be a G5 imac but nothing is sure yet.

I hope a g5 imac come out soon!!!

 

[PowerMacMan]

Honestly i dont see new g5's before wwdc and i got a frien at apple consulting who said they will be ready in mid may but wont be announced until wwdc. He also said there might be a G5 imac but nothing is sure yet.

I hope a g5 imac come out soon!!!

This seems like good information, since of the supply problems maybe they're gathering up all the rev B G5's so that when they announce them they can ship them, and have enough so the ship dates aren't 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 weeks.