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

MWNY PowerMac Specs?

Does the moniker "G" anything have to necessarily relate to CPU?

So they went to the new Apollo G4 chip. It's faster than the previous G4 chip, right? Now if what peeps are saying is true, DDR and/or RapidIO RAM, AGP(x8?) and everything else new begs the question:

Does it really need to be a brand new line of CPUs for Apple to put the "G5" label on it? These speeds that are being proposed are pretty impressive. It's up to the marketing dept at Apple. If the G5 line of processors from Motorola are not going to make it out until MWSF '03 or possibly later, could Apple get away with calling the proposed new machine of MWNY a G5 and when the next chip from Motorola is ready, call that a G6? Or G20 or whatever Motorola is calling the chip?

I guess i'm confused about when Apple started using the "G" and whether it was an expressed intention that the "G" naming scheme was always going to be inline with Motorola. Maybe Steve-o is going to bag the "G" naming system anyway, call the machine something new. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

The technology has matured enough that this new machine could be called a G5, with my humblest of blessings for whatever that's worth.

Exactly $.02


PS Happy Mother's Day to any mac-using mothers out there. I'm sure a minority in this forum.:rolleyes:
 
Dear Lucs,

The reason why apple hasn't offered a 120GB driv eyet is because the ATA 66 can't handle anything bigger then 80GB. I know ATA 100 can handle upto 120GB and ATA 133 can go up to 160GB. Guys if I'm wrong just correct me.

I really hope Apple goes ATA 133. That would solve hard drive dilemas for quite some time.
 
...Does it really need to be a brand new line of CPUs for Apple to put the "G5" label on it?...
Click to expand...

Technically Apple's marketing names do not have to match anything that Motorola does. We have recently seen Apple naming the PowerMac and PowerBook products with a Gx designation to describe the CPU family used in the machine. Apple has chosen to use the Motorola designation for the family.

Apple could call anything they want the G5, it's just that it would cause a lot of confusion.

This kind of relates back to an earlier post I made. Motorola explicitly states what technologies are included in processor families. DDR and Rapid IO are definitely part of G5 and not G4.

If they do release some sort of hybrid, I think it would be a really good idea to get away from the Gx naming scheme.
 
Brand matters

I believe the general consensus is that "G" means generation.

G1 would be the 601, G2 would be 604/603. The 7xx series aka G3 was the first official use of the term on the whole computer and the evolved 603 still in use today. G4 came next as a logical progression on the CPU and overall computer.

Intel also started using numbering with the Pentium II, III and now IV (can't anyone come up with an original idea?).

Fanciful names have been used, but generally lead to confusion with the consumer i.e. is the LC better than a Centris vs. a Quadra?

Using the single term is really simple, everyone understands numerical progression (larger numbers = bigger/newer) and its already been in use for many years so why change?

Using G5 would be appropriate for the whole computer, and possibly the CPU if it is an evolved G4 and not an updated G4. It will rankle the die hards waiting for a mythical super processor to blow away Intel and AMD (maybe MWSF 2003), but I don't see that coming yet it at all so the new G4/G5 will be a bit of a mixed bag no matter what.

If the overall computer is a radical change such as with the rackmount server then it deserves a distinct identity to differentiate itself in its market.

A whole lot of people way more experienced than any mere consumer thinks about this stuff almost from the beginning (specs/marketing development usually pre-date product development). And sometimes code names "stick" as was the case with Macintosh, Lisa, Newton and other projects at Apple.

MWNY will disappoint a lot of people, thats a given. How many and by how much is all that remains to be seen. Besides we are getting a rackmount server (apparently) this Tuesday - the first Jobs dynasty product matrix expansion since the iBook (consumer-specific laptop). Lets hope *it* rocks and sweat the G4/G5 details later.:D
 
Re: Brand matters

Originally posted by Sayer

If the overall computer is a radical change such as with the rackmount server then it deserves a distinct identity to differentiate itself in its market.

MWNY will disappoint a lot of people, thats a given. How many and by how much is all that remains to be seen. Besides we are getting a rackmount server (apparently) this Tuesday - the first Jobs dynasty product matrix expansion since the iBook (consumer-specific laptop). Lets hope *it* rocks and sweat the G4/G5 details later.:D
Click to expand...

But that would be at odds with the G nomeclature because its not a CPU upgrade. Maybe they'll designate it a G4x, where the x is another letter or combination there of.

As for MWNY, I'm just hoping it doesn't become a fiasco. So many people, professionals and prosumers, are chomping at the bit for a really kick ass machine that will put us ahead of the PC world. If this doesn't happen soon, Apple might start losing some of its momentum and start slipping back again. If the servers end up being more than we expect, then MWNY might not be that much of a dissapointment.
 
Here's the way I've always thought of it:
G1- 680x0 processors.
G2- 601-604 processors (it's the beginning of the Power PC family)
G3- PPC (IBM) or MPC (don't know if they name it that way, but I think i've seen it like that) 700 series
G4- PPC or MPC 7000 series (started at 7400)
G5- PPC or MPC 8000 series

I think that Apple would have to be incredibly stupid to make a computer with an upgraded system bus with a 7000 series processor and call it a G5. The naming goes with the chip. Essentially, the 400mhz G4 and the new 1Ghz G4 are still G4's. They have the same basic architecture, and both use altivec. They are still the same chip, just that the 1Ghz one is faster, has a more upgraded architecture, and has more advanced features, but it's still a G4.

When does a G4 become a G5 as far as the name of the computer is concerned? When Apple actually uses a 8000 series chip in their computers. If Apple makes a 133mhz DDR motherboard but puts in a G4, they will still call it a G4. They may call it G4DDR or something like that, but it will still be a G4, unless Apple changes their naming convention, but a computer with a 7000 series chip will never be called a G5. It's just wrong for marketing.

The G5 is an essentially different chip than the G4. It has so many new features, that the G4 won't mold into the G5, but rather the G5 will come with a bang, and will be almost completely different than the G4.
 
166mhz DDR bus!!!, how do you think they get DDR333. BTW these new computers rock. Im going to get one this summer and a 23" Cinema Display!!! get ready for me apple!!!
 
Originally posted by G4scott
Here's the way I've always thought of it:
G1- 680x0 processors.
G2- 601-604 processors (it's the beginning of the Power PC family)
G3- PPC (IBM) or MPC (don't know if they name it that way, but I think i've seen it like that) 700 series
G4- PPC or MPC 7000 series (started at 7400)
G5- PPC or MPC 8000 series

I think that Apple would have to be incredibly stupid to make a computer with an upgraded system bus with a 7000 series processor and call it a G5. The naming goes with the chip. Essentially, the 400mhz G4 and the new 1Ghz G4 are still G4's. They have the same basic architecture, and both use altivec. They are still the same chip, just that the 1Ghz one is faster, has a more upgraded architecture, and has more advanced features, but it's still a G4.

When does a G4 become a G5 as far as the name of the computer is concerned? When Apple actually uses a 8000 series chip in their computers. If Apple makes a 133mhz DDR motherboard but puts in a G4, they will still call it a G4. They may call it G4DDR or something like that, but it will still be a G4, unless Apple changes their naming convention, but a computer with a 7000 series chip will never be called a G5. It's just wrong for marketing.

The G5 is an essentially different chip than the G4. It has so many new features, that the G4 won't mold into the G5, but rather the G5 will come with a bang, and will be almost completely different than the G4.
Click to expand...
You have the Gx naming convention wrong. Look at Moto's roadmap , it clearly states which chips fall under which "G".

And just because a chip falls under the 7xxx family doesn't mean it's a G4. The 7xxx family are chips used for computers and "high-end embedded". 8xxx chips are used in the communications sector (i.e. Cisco's routers).

If (and this is still in question) Motorola is going to provide a G5 chip for Macs, it'll be numbered as a 75xx chip, not a 85xx.

You'll also notice that under the G5 flag (and the G6 as well), there is no provision for the 75xx moniker. To me, that's an indication that either a) Motorola isn't supplying the G5 to Apple OR b)Motorola is keeping quiet about a G5 chip to Apple at Apple's request.
 
Originally posted by ftaok

You have the Gx naming convention wrong. Look at Moto's roadmap , it clearly states which chips fall under which "G".

And just because a chip falls under the 7xxx family doesn't mean it's a G4. The 7xxx family are chips used for computers and "high-end embedded". 8xxx chips are used in the communications sector (i.e. Cisco's routers).

If (and this is still in question) Motorola is going to provide a G5 chip for Macs, it'll be numbered as a 75xx chip, not a 85xx.

You'll also notice that under the G5 flag (and the G6 as well), there is no provision for the 75xx moniker. To me, that's an indication that either a) Motorola isn't supplying the G5 to Apple OR b)Motorola is keeping quiet about a G5 chip to Apple at Apple's request.
Click to expand...


Sorry I didn't put the motorola processor strategy in my 'favorites' menu... so I had the G1/G2 mixed up and some other mistakes, but according to that roadmap, if Motorola gave Apple a chip with the 74xx classification, it wouldn't be a G5, it would still be a G4. When motorola released the G4's, they didn't release them in the 7xx family, they made the 74xx family for it.

The G5 is clearly under the 85xx family, so any G5's would have to be 85xx, or motorola would have to create a new family for the G5 in computing. But, with that little note at the bottom, wouldn't Apple's use of a G5 in PowerMacs be considered part of the consumer market? If so, this justifies them using the 8xxx family.

Either way, the G5's for Apple will probably be announced in a new product family. It may be 75xx or it may not. (I still think that it's not the 75xx, because that's too close to the G4 family. They skipped a whole 6,300 model numbers on the jump from G3 to G4...) I'm just pretty sure that Apple won't release a G4 chip in a G5 computer, and that when the G5 is ready, it will come. It won't mesh in with the G4 product line, but come in on its own...
 
On the origional Motorola Roadmap the G5 was to be labled 75xx. (Sorry, can't find the URL at the moment). However, when they released their first imbedded G5, they changed the roadmap to 85xx.

Now, there are several things to consider here. First, the 8xxx series of processors is for the imbedded market. So maybe when the rumored 75xx processor comes out they will change the roadmap to include 85xx and 75xx as G5.

Secondly, there is the specifications of the G5 and the rumored 75xx. The current G5 specs say:

- Extensible Architecture (ie BookE)
- New Pipline
- RapidIO
- Symmetric Processing
- 32 or 64 bit
- 0.13 um process (SOI)
- 800 MHz- 2 GHz

The rumored specs of the 75xx look like a G5 to me!!

Edwin
 
why so stingy with the dual?

here's a silly question:
why are they only using the fastest chips of a current line for the dual processors? 1 Ghz now; 1.4 Ghz of rumored.

frankly, I'm more interested in a cost-effective dual 800 Ghz.

regardless, the new specs do seem reasonable and may be worth putting off my purchase...

do you think a simple speed bump like this will let them hit the street by August?
 
Re: why so stingy with the dual?

Originally posted by agoldweber
here's a silly question:
why are they only using the fastest chips of a current line for the dual processors? 1 Ghz now; 1.4 Ghz of rumored.

frankly, I'm more interested in a cost-effective dual 800 Ghz.

regardless, the new specs do seem reasonable and may be worth putting off my purchase...

do you think a simple speed bump like this will let them hit the street by August?
Click to expand...

It's actually a good question to ask. :)

There are two conflicting aspects at play here.
1) Motorola most likely has higher yields of lower speed chips, making dual systems with the slower chips very cost effective. The thing is that we don't know what the top speeds are for the chips Moto has in production right now. 1 GHz is most likely the current "sweet spot" for pricing and chip yields.

BUT,

2) Apple wants to make their most expensive system more attractive to buyers to increase their profits. People who want the extra performance of dual CPUs have to pay the premium.

I would like to see dual systems across the board, since OS X can take advantage of the extra CPU in everyday tasks. But Apple will need to have enough extra "oomph" in the top-end system to keep their profits up.

There's just too much uncertainty of what chips will be coming out and who will be making them to make any definite predictions at this time.
 
Whatever Apple plans this summer they absolutely need to do 4 things by the middle of July:

1) ship OS X and Server 10.2
2) Ship rackmount servers
3) ship eMacs in MASSIVE quantities
4) ship high end tower servers (for those who don't have racks)

Why? Because schools won't have time to implement them before the beginning of the school year. I know for a fact we're buying 120 eMacs, 6 rackmount macs (depends on pricing) and maybe 1-2 tower servers. We also have 2 OS X Servers, 1 running Mac Manager and the other for web/email. Server 10.2 needs time to be set up and configured. Last year I got our servers 1 week before school went into session.

If Apple can't get them to us then we will be pissed and I will end up working long hours during the year to get things done that should have been done before anyone got there.
 
the issue seems to be naming the blasted machine over the reality of the machine. I wouldnt be surpised to see this machine at MWNY one bit. I would also not be surpised to see this called a G5 machine. Here's why. 1) the G4 chip is in every machine but the ibook and 15" imac. 2) Much like the introduction of the G4 the machine is basically a super G4 (not quit a G5 but what does the public know) 3) Moto is being very careful about the G5.
Honestly i think Apple needs to change their naming scheme. each product has a name iMac. Then each revision has a number 1 (original design) 2 (first major revision) and then update number 0 (original machine) 1 (first update) so the flat panel imac would be the iMac 2.0 while the identification on the front says iMac. in all documentation and plate engravings it says imac 2.0. the current Powermac G4 should be the Powermac G4 2.2 because i believe this is the second update for the quicksilver G4. when talking to a genius at the local Apple store by saying you have a ibook 2.0 he knows which line of machine you have and then you simply state what processor is in the thing. I think this system would alleve some of the headaches (no pun intended) the "simplistic" naming scheme has caused us.
 
return of the inputs?

another thing about these new "doable" specs--

any mention of audio and/or analog video inputs in the new G4 revision?

I know the TiBook got the audio, so I'm thinking they've listened to the many cries and may be putting them back into the Tower.

any thoughts? guesses?
 
No

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
Dear Lucs,

The reason why apple hasn't offered a 120GB driv eyet is because the ATA 66 can't handle anything bigger then 80GB. I know ATA 100 can handle upto 120GB and ATA 133 can go up to 160GB. Guys if I'm wrong just correct me.

I really hope Apple goes ATA 133. That would solve hard drive dilemas for quite some time.
Click to expand...

These numbers are purly coincedence. The ATA number deals with the data transfer speed, not the addressable sectors on a Hard Drive. For many years we have had processors, and BIOS (PC world at least) that was only able to address 32-bits worth of sectors. This will get you to the 80-100 GB range. The newer processors and BIOS use 36-bit, which will get you to 136 (I think). Both the Maxtor ATA 100 and ATA 133 controller cards bring it up to a whopping 48-bit addressing capibility, which gets us into TBs (TeraBytes). The ATA 133 spec is only an intrium, as HD manufactures are quickly developing Serial ATA, which will get rid of the "ribbon" cables in the CPU box, and replace with 2 conductors. This change will also usher in either 64 or 128 bit addressing, meaning we are now getting into hundreds of PB (PetaBytes). also the transfer speeds of Serial ATA are projected to be up to 10x that of ATA 133. I am hearing that we should be looking for this sometime in the later half of '03.

By the way this new BUS structure for the new chips sounds a lot like AMD's HyperTransport BUS structure. Also this whole bottleneck thing is getting out of hand, as the real bottleneck is still at the Disk level. Even with ATA 133, we are talking about many times slower interface that even the slowest bus speed. I can't wait for the further development of the solid state disk storage. I have seen some company producing 1 GB RAM (Card/Disks) It is a PCI card that has 4 DIMM slots on it and acts as a Hard Drive. Granted its only 1 GB, but it is at the speed of the PCI BUS, not the ATA BUS. Very fast!
 
thanx sturm375 for clearing that up.

so what do you predict will be the max that the new top of line PM with be able to hold in a single IDE drive? 160GB? 180?
 
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
thanx sturm375 for clearing that up.

so what do you predict will be the max that the new top of line PM with be able to hold in a single IDE drive? 160GB? 180?
Click to expand...

At the moment, the limiting factor on Hard Drive size is physical. They are having trouble physicaly putting more than 160 GB on a single drive. However that can be bypassed by using RAID (0 or 1, I can't remember which) that turns multipule hard drives into on big one. I saw on www.thescreensavers.com where they strung 4 160 GB Hard Drives together to make one big 640 GB Drive.
 
ALL THINGS CONSIDERED

What does everyone think of the new server specs as realted to this rumor. How likely are we to get 333 DDR in the PMs if only 266 in the servers. Maybe the 266 is more stable and can take a bigger punch, so the servers get that? I don't know...
 
Re: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED

Originally posted by drastik
What does everyone think of the new server specs as realted to this rumor. How likely are we to get 333 DDR in the PMs if only 266 in the servers. Maybe the 266 is more stable and can take a bigger punch, so the servers get that? I don't know...
Click to expand...

In order to see 333 DDR you will need to have the motherboard running at a 166 MHz bus speed. That will take a major revision. I think I have heard that the next revision will be 400 MHz, scheduled for when the G5 hits the market. Funny how this all parallels AMD chipsets;)
 
my guess is the new powermacs will use the same ddr that we saw today in the server.

on another note, i was perplexed about(and skeptical) that the server could contain all the rumored specs in a 1u. well, who would've guessed it would be 28" deep...thatsa bigga pizza box. ( approximately as wide as your mac keyboard and mousepad, side by side)

i've been hoping the new PM would be rack-mountable but not if its that big. my deepest rack is only 22" deep so where am i gonna put that slab? ( most racks are 20"-24" deep). maybe they'll make a shallower 4u model. hope so.

just a thought. :)
 
The rackmounts...

...still use the SDR 133MHz FSB, to get full DDR support (DDR FSB, as well as RAM) we need a new processor. The question is, will it be the 7470 (G4++) or the 7500 (G5), or something else?
 
Are there any figure on how much faster this system is compared to the dual Ghz tower?? I am trying to get an idea of how much faster the new towers will be.
 
but, can it boot OS 9?

My must urgent question in the wait vs. buy now issue is: will the new PowerMacs boot into OS 9? If yes, I can wait (albeit with excruciating anticipation); if not, I want to buy now while the rebates are plentiful!
 
Re: but, can it boot OS 9?

Originally posted by TiVoFan
My must urgent question in the wait vs. buy now issue is: will the new PowerMacs boot into OS 9? If yes, I can wait (albeit with excruciating anticipation); if not, I want to buy now while the rebates are plentiful!
Click to expand...

Wow, I guess Apple's pushing OS X so hard that people think 9 is being left completely out in the dust.

Yes, new PowerMacs will absolutely be able to boot into 9. It will have OS X as the default startup disk, but 9 will also be installed.
 
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