Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New PowerBooks on Tuesday.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I watched the MWNY 2002 keynote, and iDVD was not introduced at that time. It was not even updated. iCal and iSync were announced, more switch ads were released, there was a Jaguar preview, and there was the intro of the 17" iMac. Even with that said, it was still boring.
Mathematically, you are correct. However, I do remember someone on these boards saying that although you could get the total ram up to 1152 MB, the motherboard inside the 12" PB can only handle a gig. I am not sure who that person was, and even if he/she is correct. I do know that the system profiler sees both chips, but I am unsure if the PowerBook can use all of the ram to its maximum potential.
Finally, there are reasons on both sides for believing what chip will be in the new PowerBooks. Don't call people fools or idiots because they don't agree with your logic. We will all see on Tuesday.
Oing?? Please reread my post. I was commenting that Apple and Motorola are not "finished" because the G4 will be in Macs (Powerbooks and iMacs) for a while.
This is faulty logic. The 7455 in the iMac is the same one they've been selling in their towers for over a year. It has yield and heat problems when clocking over 1.25 Ghz. Apple probably can't introduce a new Powerbook any sooner because as speed bump requires the new 7457 (G4) which simply wasn't available, perhaps still isn't available (they could pre-announce).
The same thing probably occurred when the Powerbook G4 was first released in 2001. The video subsystem was not as new as it could be which implies Apple was again waiting on the CPU availability.
Photorun,
First of all think before you post something in a public forum.
One being wrong is subject to the beliefs of the beholder.
I haven't said there will definitley be G5s Tuesday. I said it was possible. I still think G4s are going to be announced unfortunatley. So how is that wrong?
According to you it isn't.
First of all think before you post something in a public forum.
One being wrong is subject to the beliefs of the beholder.
I haven't said there will definitley be G5s Tuesday. I said it was possible. I still think G4s are going to be announced unfortunatley. So how is that wrong?
According to you it isn't.
Re: Not too hot...
There is no doubt that there is a direct coorelation between a processor's power consumption and the amount of heat it dissipates.
However, motherboards are populated with more than just processor chips.
Although G5s may be in the same ballpark as G4s with respect to heat dissipation, the overall dissipation of a G5 motherboard remains unknown to us at this time and may well be just a bit too hot for a laptop.
Or it may be perfectly fine.
Quoting manufacturer's chip-specific specifications serves as a useful guidline but does not provide a complete picture of potential new motherboards.
We'll simply have to wait and see, as painful as that is. ;-)
MUC
There is no doubt that there is a direct coorelation between a processor's power consumption and the amount of heat it dissipates.
However, motherboards are populated with more than just processor chips.
Although G5s may be in the same ballpark as G4s with respect to heat dissipation, the overall dissipation of a G5 motherboard remains unknown to us at this time and may well be just a bit too hot for a laptop.
Or it may be perfectly fine.
Quoting manufacturer's chip-specific specifications serves as a useful guidline but does not provide a complete picture of potential new motherboards.
We'll simply have to wait and see, as painful as that is. ;-)
MUC
has there been any information about availability? will it actually be available on tuesday or just announced. i'm assuming announced since no resellers have said they received new boxes from apple.
Re: Re: Not too hot...
Please read your documents more carefully. That document was released in 2003, so the Oct/Dec comment means THIS Oct/Dec. That means those chips DO NOT EXIST!!! Just like the 7457 DOES NOT EXIST. I mean, they might be floating around somewhere in some R&D lab, but we have no proof. Another bit of evidence incriminating your holy grail PDF is that is says the 7457 is available in Q2 2003. I don't know where you live, but on Earth is is now nearly the end of Q3 2003 and no one seems to have 7457s.
It also shows a 933MHz 7455 that DOES exist as a consumer product using 19W typical. This is the exact same part and exact same numbers quoted earlier, this is the part that uses 30W max. This is the "1.0" chip that has been in powerbooks for like a year now. A 970 @ 1.8GHz uses 42W max. That's an 80% clockspeed gain for a 30% increase in power usage. Clock the 970 down to 1.4GHz and you have matched the currently in powerbooks 1.0GHz G4e. Unfortunately, the 1.4GHz 970 has never been proven to exist. The old rumors said the 970 would start at 1.4, but there's been no confirmation that IBM is producing clocked-down 970s. It seems like the COULD, I mean, there's a lot of unused capacity at Fishkill, but who knows if the ARE?
The problem getting a G5 system into a powerbook isn't going to be the heat or the size of the processor. It's going to come down to whether apple managed to design an ASIC that isn't going to eat batteries and make toast. They've had about 18 months to do so. We'll see Tuesday if they succeeded.
Now, if Motorolla has actually pulled off a miracle and shipped 7457s early like they said they could, that would still make a great laptop chip. 1.3Ghz, at a great 16W typical, well that's a good chip. If only it could take advantage of DDR Ram and a faster FSB, the G4 would be great. The poor thing is just starving because Motorolla either can't or can't be bothered to figure out how to get it fatter pipes.
Please read your documents more carefully. That document was released in 2003, so the Oct/Dec comment means THIS Oct/Dec. That means those chips DO NOT EXIST!!! Just like the 7457 DOES NOT EXIST. I mean, they might be floating around somewhere in some R&D lab, but we have no proof. Another bit of evidence incriminating your holy grail PDF is that is says the 7457 is available in Q2 2003. I don't know where you live, but on Earth is is now nearly the end of Q3 2003 and no one seems to have 7457s.
It also shows a 933MHz 7455 that DOES exist as a consumer product using 19W typical. This is the exact same part and exact same numbers quoted earlier, this is the part that uses 30W max. This is the "1.0" chip that has been in powerbooks for like a year now. A 970 @ 1.8GHz uses 42W max. That's an 80% clockspeed gain for a 30% increase in power usage. Clock the 970 down to 1.4GHz and you have matched the currently in powerbooks 1.0GHz G4e. Unfortunately, the 1.4GHz 970 has never been proven to exist. The old rumors said the 970 would start at 1.4, but there's been no confirmation that IBM is producing clocked-down 970s. It seems like the COULD, I mean, there's a lot of unused capacity at Fishkill, but who knows if the ARE?
The problem getting a G5 system into a powerbook isn't going to be the heat or the size of the processor. It's going to come down to whether apple managed to design an ASIC that isn't going to eat batteries and make toast. They've had about 18 months to do so. We'll see Tuesday if they succeeded.
Now, if Motorolla has actually pulled off a miracle and shipped 7457s early like they said they could, that would still make a great laptop chip. 1.3Ghz, at a great 16W typical, well that's a good chip. If only it could take advantage of DDR Ram and a faster FSB, the G4 would be great. The poor thing is just starving because Motorolla either can't or can't be bothered to figure out how to get it fatter pipes.
a little note about processor production...
No matter what the rated clock speed, all G5 processors are identical. All that decides what speed they're run at is how well the device performs during testing.
So, should there be a requirement for G5s to be run at just 1.2GHz, there would be no change required to the production process.
Indeed, if a viable platform is found for sub-1.6GHz G5 processors, they'd be opening up a market for chips whose fabrication quality limits them clockspeed-wise, and would otherwise not be saleable.
Edit:
Just to clarify. Fabrication plants do not make "1.6 GHz" or "2.0 GHz" processors. They just make "processors". Testing then establishes how your manufacturing variances have panned out, and what your yield is at various clock-speeds.
No matter what the rated clock speed, all G5 processors are identical. All that decides what speed they're run at is how well the device performs during testing.
So, should there be a requirement for G5s to be run at just 1.2GHz, there would be no change required to the production process.
Indeed, if a viable platform is found for sub-1.6GHz G5 processors, they'd be opening up a market for chips whose fabrication quality limits them clockspeed-wise, and would otherwise not be saleable.
Edit:
Just to clarify. Fabrication plants do not make "1.6 GHz" or "2.0 GHz" processors. They just make "processors". Testing then establishes how your manufacturing variances have panned out, and what your yield is at various clock-speeds.
Re: So am I a fool for having a very valid oppinion?
So are you saying anyone who is ever wrong a fool, or just wood-e would be a fool for being wrong?
Re: Re: Not too hot...
What I haven't seen posted is the simple fact that either (a) the current G5s are overclocked by Apple (as usual, which would explain all the fans/heatsink stuff) or (b) the G5s are not overclocked but you can simply 'underclock them' down to 1 or 1.2 Ghz (which Apple has also been known to do for various reasons, 'fanless' being the operative reason AFAIK)
So considering these two very simple and minor possible tweaks I don't see any reason why 1 or 1.2 Ghz 970 chips couldn't be made available for PBs. Now the redesigned Motherboard et al is a whole different can of worms....
Edit:
Someone beat me to this revelation but the point still stands
What I haven't seen posted is the simple fact that either (a) the current G5s are overclocked by Apple (as usual, which would explain all the fans/heatsink stuff) or (b) the G5s are not overclocked but you can simply 'underclock them' down to 1 or 1.2 Ghz (which Apple has also been known to do for various reasons, 'fanless' being the operative reason AFAIK)
So considering these two very simple and minor possible tweaks I don't see any reason why 1 or 1.2 Ghz 970 chips couldn't be made available for PBs. Now the redesigned Motherboard et al is a whole different can of worms....
Edit:
Someone beat me to this revelation but the point still stands
"All of the new models will run a Jaguar OS variant code-named Blackrider. Like Smeagol, the build train for the Power Mac G5, Blackrider is a special version of Mac OS X 10.2.7 with hardware support for the new models."-Thinksecret
If I am wrong correct me...but I thought that 10.2.7 was to enhance functionability for the g5, if the powerbooks don't have a g5 in them why bother putting a variant of 10.2.7?
If I am wrong correct me...but I thought that 10.2.7 was to enhance functionability for the g5, if the powerbooks don't have a g5 in them why bother putting a variant of 10.2.7?
I can't wait for Tuesday. I have my mouse finger ready to click "buy" and my bank account healthy.
I just hope it is really something worth being this excited over.
Apple never seems to fail to surprise me, though.. 2.0Ghz G5's being the most recent HUGE surprise.. I was expecting 1.5 at the MOST.
And, btw, yes a 1.2 Ghz G5 would be a lot faster than a G4, because of faster RAM, more bus speed, etc.
I just hope it is really something worth being this excited over.
Apple never seems to fail to surprise me, though.. 2.0Ghz G5's being the most recent HUGE surprise.. I was expecting 1.5 at the MOST.
And, btw, yes a 1.2 Ghz G5 would be a lot faster than a G4, because of faster RAM, more bus speed, etc.
Re: coverage
Wait, don't tell me. You might not be able to cover the keynote because YOU'RE STILL WAITING ON A POWERBOOK!
Wait, don't tell me. You might not be able to cover the keynote because YOU'RE STILL WAITING ON A POWERBOOK!