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

Now that G5 are here what about the G3

The iBook is going no where. It is a top seller and a great deal, as far as Macs are concerned.

The 750GX (Gobi) will only support a 200MHz FSB, just like the 750FX. The iBook's FSB is held at 100MHz because the G4 (7455) can only struggle to get to 167MHz. The 12" PB only has a 133, I believe. The big improvement of the Gobi processor is a reduction in size (.10 micron) that will allow it to scale to 2 GHz. It also has 512KB more L2 cache, bringing its total up to 1024KB - making it more power efficient and faster.

The 750VX (Mojave) is currently sampling. The VX title is actually related to the introduction of the SIMD optimization known as Altivec to us Mac users. This chip also will support a 450MHz bus (possibly greater) and will ship with speeds of 1.5GHz to 2 GHz.

The 7457 is on the way from Moto, so
I expect a revision to the iMac, eMac, PowerMac G4, and PB based on it. I wouldn't be surprised to see iMac, eMac, and PB speedbumped in NY at Create, incorporating the 7457. I expect the PM G4 to be renamed and become a headless low-end Mac, sporting up to two 7457s running at 1.5GHz a piece. I think the Powerbooks will be bumped to 1.15 and 1.3 GHz, maybe up to 1.5. I'd guess that the iMac would go to 1.5 and the eMac to 1.25.

The iBook would sport the new 750GX and go to 1 GHz or slightly higher, unless the 12" PB hits 1.3, in which case I'd expect the iBook to hit 1.25 GHz.

And come January, I expect an amazing MacWorld. Why? Because Steve will deliver 3GHz G5s six months before promised. Why? Because IBM will move the 970 to .09 before the end of the year, allowing for a Feb-March shipment of dual G5 3 GHz machines. But there'll be a lot more than one more thing in SF this January.

I expect Apple will announce they will no longer use Motorola in any new Macs. They will unveil the 750VX and call it something the the G4+ or the G4 Xtreme (likely with X running on it) or something like that. They will also announce the PowerBook G5, because they'll be able to get a 970 in those things at .09 (up to 2GHz and maybe 2.25). The eMac and iMac will get slight redesigns to place USB, firewire, and headphone jacks up front, and the iMac will get dual processor capability (because Mojave fully supports SMP). So, here's the lineup to be introduced in January that I project according to what I know from IBM (to be phased in gradually in Feb and March, diff ship dates).

1. PowerMac G5 shipping with single 2.0GHz, dual 2.5GHz, and dual 3.0GHz chips.

2. PowerBook G5 shipping with 1.8GHz and 2.0GHz processors.

3. iBox Xtreme(headless iMac name?) shipping with G4 Xtreme (or some other diff name) single 1.5GHz and single or dual 2.0GHz processors.

4. iMac Xtreme shipping with G4 Xtreme single 1.5 GHz and single or dual 2.0GHz processors (for those who want the elegance and simplicity of the iMac).

5. iBook Xtreme shipping with 1.5GHz and (hopefully) 1.75 GHz G4 Xtreme processors - even though the 2GHz should be plenty cool.

6. eMac shipping with 1.25 and 1.5 GHz G4 Xtreme chips.

I also hope that Apple will implement DDR400 across the board because every machine would be able to fully support it at this time. If Apple fully utilizes what IBM is going to provide (bearing in mind Apple's need to not have overlapping products) then this is possible come Q1 of 2004. By the end of 2004 the G5 should be past 3.5GHz and possibly to 4, and the 980 (G6?) could be introduced at MWSF in 2005. It'll be ready - based on the upcoming Power5. Great thing is, IBM tends to deliver ahead of schedule.
 
I think that the iBook sort of needs a G4. The 900mhz G3 is ok for marginal tasks, but you really start to notice a system slowdown with a few applications open.
 
argh - how ignorant can people be.

THE G3 IS A BETTER PROCESSOR THAN THE G4

Mojave chip is a G3 by IBM that has an ACU* stuck on it. Altivec can not be on it because it is owned my moto. So - like thay did with the 970 (g5) IBM put an altivec compatible unit on it.

Now - remember pre-G3. I believe moto had a chip in there (i dunno numbers? 603e?). All they did was make the process smaller and call it a G3. They then took the G3 design and added altivec and called it a G4. Motos G3 could not go above (love this) 500Mhz.
So who has been making G3s since - lijke the 900? IBM.

Now if moto adds altivec and calls it a G3. And IBM adds an ACU* (IBM's ACU* is actually better than motos original altivec unit still on G4s today) why can't they call it the G4??

NO REASON. G3 + ACU* and we get G4.
They could actually use the model in the powerbooks and just cripple the FSB for the ibooks. How cheap! Same chip in all notebooks.

Sounds like something I remember (P2 -> celeron anyone)


*Altivec Compatible Unit
 
The G4 is not a G3 plus Altivec, and Altivec is basically the Apple name for the SIMD instructions that IBM and Moto both own. The name may be owned by Moto, but IBM's version is Altivec, for all intents and purposes.

The G4 does have a slightly different architecture than the G3, including 3 more pipeline stages and fewer comp errors. The G3 can do some things faster and others slower - even if both have similar SIMD enhancements. However, a 2 GHz SIMD enhanced G3 should be able to smoke any current G4 - and give any current PC a run for its money - both in cost and speed. If a 2GHz 750VX were able to and did sport an 800MHz bu with dual channel DDR400, the single chip could do well compared to the fastest P4s.
 
still the majority of my underlying logic is the same.
Mojave is just as good (actually better -> IBMs G3 integer + IBMs ACU) as a G4
No reason for apple not to call it so.
 
Originally posted by benixau
still the majority of my underlying logic is the same.
Mojave is just as good (actually better -> IBMs G3 integer + IBMs ACU) as a G4
No reason for apple not to call it so.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think they'll differentiate between the current G4 and IBM's version, if only to soothe us Mac users. Moto's G4 processor was good to start with, but then failed to scale fast enough and has had one heck of a RAM/FSB bottleneck (it also has L2 cache that runs below processor speed). I think it was for Apple to either stress it as an "IBM G4" or call it something like a G4 Xtreme. The naming implies that it is better than the old G4s. Keeping G3, we are in agreement, would be a bad move. Besides, one could argue that the G3 would no longer be one with SIMD enhancement.

Now what Apple needs to do is get the price points down. I feel that Moto's inflated prices have kept Apple's own prices high. I hope for a reduction in cost across the board come January. There's no reason why a Dual 2 GHz G4 "Xtreme" should cost more than $1299-$1399 in its base config. I also think a dual 3 GHz G5 @ $2699 is possible, if not too expensive. G5 prices should go down at .09, so $2499 or $2599 is also possible.
 
apple differentiates its products very very carefully.

Once they speed up the PBs look for ibook speed ups.

marketing is having a little touble right now explaining why (in AUD) you can get a 900 for $2399 or a 867 for $3099.

BUT - in response: it dedpends what you call a G3. I believe if it comes from (now anyways) IBMs 750 series it is a G3.

Apple will probably as we have suggested since Mojave was announced, call it a G4 Extreme. Cripple it and call it a G3 Extreme or just G4 and put it in a iBook.

It would dramatically reduce cost if all the had to do to make a lower version of the proc was to lower the FSB and clock a little.

How do they stop o/c the FSB? simple: built-in RAM. The soldered chips on a 12"PB means it is rather unsafe to o/c the FSB. I have on my Pmac (133 -> 167) and i would on a 12" too if it didnt have the soldered on RAM. I can not tell if the RAM would survive at the higher clock speed.

Anyways - keeping a chip with no altivec or ACU around is a bad idea - at least we agree on that. Especially now since we a have a G5.
 
BTW - the imac can never have a DP. 2 reasons:

heat (small single fan in imac)
marketing: get a SP Powermac for 3000 or a DP imac for 2400. hmmmmm.

But i agree with most of the rest.
 
I don't think the iMac would ever have dual processors with Motorola's 7455. The 7457 is much cooler and fabbed at .13 instead of .18.

However, I feel that it is a possibility with Mojave because Mojave runs very cool. This chip would run at double the clock speed of the iMac's current G4 and have about half the heat. I think it is possible and their would be a market for it at a reasonable price. Think about the advantages of placing two processors in a consumer end, user friendly machine as compared to the cheap Pentium-based chips that can't do SMP. It gives Apple a distinct advantage in the consumer end, and could give them a speed advantage across the board.

Besides, IBM is making these chips for Apple because they expect Apple to make every effort to gain marketshare. Intel is currently working on exiting the x86 architecture and wants to move the PC world to Itanium. IBM is trying to make sure Itanium never is successful. It is clear what the goal is: an attempt to make the PowerPC architecture the successor to x86, allowing better control and reliability in the computer industry. This does not mean that Apple alone will dominate the market, because I expect the PPC machines to be made by others if the attempt is successful - but that is the goal.
 
marketing marketing marketing.

if apple were to make a DP iMac then they would need to have all of there pmac line DP.

Right now that is too expensive. in the future maybe (back to the future eh -> MDD rev.A)
 
Originally posted by benixau
marketing marketing marketing.

if apple were to make a DP iMac then they would need to have all of there pmac line DP.

Right now that is too expensive. in the future maybe (back to the future eh -> MDD rev.A)
Click to expand...

I agree, but I'm starting to think that come .09 G5 that it'll be cheap enough to put duals in all PowerMacs. Maybe dual 2.5 and 3.0 configs. That could allow for market expansion, if Apple puts a lot of inexpensive dual machines out there.
 
Hmmmm.

An interesting thought, i think it would have to go something like this (speeds are relative to one and other)

iMac -> G5; FSB / 2
DP iMac -> G5 x2; FSB / 2

DP Pmac -> (G5 + 0.5Ghz) x2; FSB
DP Pmac -> (G5 + 0.8Ghz) x2; FSB
DP Pmac -> (G5 + 1Ghz) x2; FSB

only the Pmacs to have SATA as well. And of course apple will keep the graphics down a little on the DP imac.

What do you think. It could be done but your right, it would most likely be on at least 9nm tech. 13nm is just too much right now and the chip is too expensive for the moment.
 
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