Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
IBM not developing the 750 fast enough: Of course they haven't. You know why? THEY WERE DEVELOPING THE 970 AT THE SAME TIME! The 750 isn't meant to compete with the G4. Motorola, on the other hand, was working exclusively on the G4, and *trying* to keep it competitive.
Apple has been working with IBM for three years to get a PowerPC version of the Power4 processor. In order to make it small enough to have a economically feasible size to compete with the Intel chips Apple had to wait until IBM could move it to the 130-nm chip making process.
IBM did not design a whole new chip architecture exclusively for Apple. They made a smaller and less expensive to produce version of the already existing Power4 architecture. To expect IBM or Motorola to make a completely new PowerPC architecture for Apple that would keep up with Intel's pace of development is completely out of the realm of possibility. Apple's marketshare is simply too small for that to happen. It's to a point where for every dollar that Motorola or IBM will take in from sales to Apple, Intel will take in at least one hundred dollars from PC manufacturers. IBM can spread out their costs of developing the Power4 and PowerPC 970 processors by essentially charging IBM computer customers thousands per Power chip and also using the 970 chip in their own brand of computers.
"If Motorola only wanted the embedded sector, then they would have stopped manufacturing chips for Apple awhile back.": They have this thing called a "contract", Phinias. They can't just stop. Besides, the G4 is essentially an embedded processor anyway.
Contract?!? There is likely an agreement between Apple and Motorola for PowerPC G4 processors and also between Apple and IBM for G3 processors. To imply that either IBM or Motorola are forced to continue producing PowerPC processors for Apple even if they lose money at it is pretty far fetched.
Motorola has been making host PowerPC processors that initially are sold to Apple and then make their way down to the embedded market. If Motorola were to make a PowerPC design geared almost exclusively for the desktop computer market then it would have to have a watt usage that would simply not sell in the embedded market. Which means that Motorola would be trying to keep up with Intel's desktop designs while working with a 1 to 100 disadvantage in research and development funds compared to Intel. It simply would not work for the long haul. You blame Motorola for not being able to pull a rabbit out of the hat for Apple and yet Apple's shrinking marketshare necessitates a change in strategy for the PowerPc manufacturers.
I said: The G4's only advantage over the G3 was AltiVec. It was not cost effective to put it in all products at once.
Motorola has been able to get the G4 up to 1.42 GHz on a 180-nm process and IBM has only gotten the G3 to 900 MHz on a smaller 130-nm process size. Yet neither of those companies has significantly changed their respective chip architecture. Quite simply the G4 is superior in frequency and also due to the addition of Altivec. Motorola has simply been able to keep the G4 well ahead of the performance that IBM could muster with the G3.
When the G4 is moved over to the 130-nm process in the next couple of months it will eventually top out unofficially at 1.8 GHz for a version for Apple and a listing of 1.3 GHz by Motorola. That and Motorola developing Altivec and putting into the G4 is another indication of the how Motorola has advanced the G4 processor far beyond the performance of IBM's G3 chip. This was done well before IBM agreed to make a PowerPC version of the Power4 processor for Apple. IBM had ample opportunity to make a faster PowerPC processor to compete against the G4 but they did not. Could it be that IBM just didn't see enough sales potential in Apple's shrinking marketshare to make them willing to invest millions to advance its speed? Also could it be that the Motorola G4 design is quite a bit faster than the G3? Both of those are likely the case.
Phineas, once again, you utterly fail to grasp the point. Let me make it more clear: The G5 is so much faster than the G4 that it makes sense from a cost/performance basis to replace the cheap but horribly slow G4 with the much faster G5.
Your in for a shocker when Apple is still selling Motorola processors well into 2004. Motorola and Apple are working closely together in much the same way that Apple has been working with IBM in getting the 970 out. Motorola would simply not have commited to making a dual-core G4 unless Apple had already agreed to purchase it. There no market for a G4 processor that uses 25+ watts outside of Apple and Motorola has already stated that a dual-core G4 running at 1.5 watts will probably burn 25 watts. Neither IBM nor Motorola designs and makes new host processor PowerPC hoping that Apple might be interested when it is completed. There is an agreement between the companies before the project proceeds
Let me make this clear to you: This is the exact thing Apple did with the G3, because it so utterly outperformed the cheaper but slower 603e and the 604e. There is a precedent for Apple acting as I predict they will.
Again, you fail to realize that if Apple completely drops Motorola, then Apple will be stuck with only one supplier of PowerPC processors. There simply isn't another chip manufacturer that would jump in to fill Motorola's vacancy. It's totally unrealistic to believe that Apple would go with only one PowerPC chip supplier in the foreseeable future.
And let me ask you a question. Do you work for Motorola? That's the only explanation I can think of for you being such a deluded Motorola apologist.
Let me try to make this very clear to you.
Motorola is advancing the performance of their PowerPC chips by concentrating on manufacturing process improvements which will benefit all of their processors. This was chosen instead of using a large chunk of rather limited funds to design a new processor that would be manufactured almost exclusively for Apple. It doesn't look like it was economically feasible for Motorola to come out with new processor designs when the company was losing money.
There are several ways to advance the performance of a processor and it doesn't necessarily involve a new logic design and high frequencies. The G4 for example was moved to 1 GHz using SOI, then 1.25 Ghz with the addition of a low-k dielectric coating and Motorola also gave Apple a higher volt version that moved it to 1.42 GHz. That's a 42% jump in frequency without changing the process size or logic design. If Motorola had come out with a new G5 processor then many of those chip making advances would have had to be curtailed due to lack of funds.
Motorola is working with two other chip manufacturers to advance chip manufacturing. That is why Motorola will be able to move the G4 to a 130-nm process this year and down to the 90-nm process next year.
By making a dual-core G4, Motorola will be able to increase the G4 chip performance by another 50% without greatly redesigning the core logic. Sticking with the simpler and smaller design of the G4 enables Motorola to make a dual-core version thats price/performance competitive.
Don't believe a G4 processor could be competitive with what Intel will be offering? Moving to a 130-nm process this year gives the G4 a boost in speed of 33%. Going to the 90-nm process next year adds another 33% or more boost in performance. Then add another 50% increase in chip performance by having two G4s on one chip. That's a potential increase in performance of at least 2.6X.
. No one comes close, apple is thin and sleek, as well as light, well equiped and well powered. So stop comparing PC laptops to Macs, the price difference isn't much, and what you sacrifice to get it is just pathetic, and that's if you only talk about the hardware of the machine.
