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.
Possible New Information on New G4s
- Thread starter Ensign Paris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
G5 in 2002
I still believe that we'll see the G5 in July at MWNY.
Why? Mainly, it's based on hope.
However, Apple needs to get the G5 out of the door. Otherwise Apple will loose it's superiority in power over the intel/AMD competition. Why should professionals buy a Mac then? If the AMD Hammer is really as fast as it seems Apple will significantly loose grounds on the pro sector.
Besides - and I believe a lot of you guys share these thoughts with me - I am NOT going to buy another G4. I am definitely going to buy a G5. And since I believe that a lot of people thing in the same way Apple will have a hard time selling another G4.
We had that when Apple released the QuickSilver 2002. Apple tried to convince people that they were not going to release a new PowerMac any time soon.
I still believe that we'll see the G5 in July at MWNY.
Why? Mainly, it's based on hope.
However, Apple needs to get the G5 out of the door. Otherwise Apple will loose it's superiority in power over the intel/AMD competition. Why should professionals buy a Mac then? If the AMD Hammer is really as fast as it seems Apple will significantly loose grounds on the pro sector.
Besides - and I believe a lot of you guys share these thoughts with me - I am NOT going to buy another G4. I am definitely going to buy a G5. And since I believe that a lot of people thing in the same way Apple will have a hard time selling another G4.
We had that when Apple released the QuickSilver 2002. Apple tried to convince people that they were not going to release a new PowerMac any time soon.
Lemme take a stab at consolidation:
We have no solid evidence to suggest that ANY Moto chip will be Apple's next choice. We know it will come from either Moto or IBM.
The 8xxx and 7xxx series MPC PPC processors from Moto are described on Moto's site as "Embedded" chip types.
A transitional hybrid chip with a faster mobo makes sense from a development prespective. To switch all software globally to 64 bit would kill off any developer loyalty left after the cocoa/carbon mess.
A 32/64 G4 with even a 250 Rapid I/O and DDR at 1.2Ghz would kick AMD/Intel's main chip lines' testicles up next to their respective kidneys.
Adding some tech from IBM's 750FX in the non-Altivec portions and updating the architecture would kill the last criticisms of G4.
Updating the Mobo-intense portions first belays the whole "Yosemite" issue that shot G4 in the foot in the first place. If the Mobo is 2nd or third gen for G5 there will be less issues with the new chip.
We have no solid evidence to suggest that ANY Moto chip will be Apple's next choice. We know it will come from either Moto or IBM.
The 8xxx and 7xxx series MPC PPC processors from Moto are described on Moto's site as "Embedded" chip types.
A transitional hybrid chip with a faster mobo makes sense from a development prespective. To switch all software globally to 64 bit would kill off any developer loyalty left after the cocoa/carbon mess.
A 32/64 G4 with even a 250 Rapid I/O and DDR at 1.2Ghz would kick AMD/Intel's main chip lines' testicles up next to their respective kidneys.
Adding some tech from IBM's 750FX in the non-Altivec portions and updating the architecture would kill the last criticisms of G4.
Updating the Mobo-intense portions first belays the whole "Yosemite" issue that shot G4 in the foot in the first place. If the Mobo is 2nd or third gen for G5 there will be less issues with the new chip.
i don't think we'll see a 64 bit chip in a mac for awhile. i've agreed most closely with catfish_man on the g5 topic before. he knows his stuff. i think that the 7500 is the g5 and will be similar to the 8540, but will be for different purposes. catfish_man, i've also heard RapidIO only in increments of 250mhz. I've heard of hypertransport with 400mhz, but i don't think we'll see that in the g5 powermacs. like i've said before: 7470 (g4) mwny jul 02 and 7500 (g5) mwsf jan 03.
the problem with your 7400=g4 and 7500=g5 reasoning is that its not based on reality. i mean sure apple coudl decide to call it that. we were all wondering if they would call the apollo chip the g5 and begging and wishing they wouldnt. i think apple knows it cant call a fourth generation chip a fifth generation chip without losing respect (not good to lie to your customers). further more what has moto decide is a g4 and a g5? moto calls the 8500 a g5. this is how it is being marketed (for those embeded technologies). while the 74xx chips are called g4s. apple isnt going to screw with moto's naming just to lie to its customers.
but i do agree with you on one thing: 7470 myny, 7500 mwsf. its the most conservative (and depressing prediction) but i think its the most realistic (especially considering apple's losey record in this area in the last 2 years).
AL,
german's reasoning is correct. If you take a look at Motorola's PPC map, you'll see that the naming convention is dictated like this.
xyzz, where x determines the market, y determines the "generation" and zz determines the chip number.
Therefore, a 8500 chip is a G5 intended for the embedded market. And the 7500 chip is a G5 for the desktop market. A 7400 chip is a G4 for the desktop market. Etc ....
This is not to say that a 8540 or 7500 chip exists. The only places that I have seen these mentioned are on rumor sites. Not the most reliable sources.
Re: G5 in 2002
All around better system stability and quality of software (at least speaking from the entertainment post production side of things).
Lethal
All around better system stability and quality of software (at least speaking from the entertainment post production side of things).
Lethal
as you can see from the above roadmap (if you have trouble reading it there are pdf versions available) the g5 is listed as being a 85xx processor. the g4 is listed as a 74xx processor. i know we have all seen this many times before but some people seem to have forgotten and have made up their own conventions (ftaok, germanknee...).
currently moto does not list the 85xx processors as anything but embedded because they arent selling them right now for anything but embedded. as you can also see by looking at the lower ends of the chart that back in the day of the g1 moto listed did have spearate naming conventions for embedded and computing products and made quite clear they stated this. that has not been the case for many years. if you go to moto's website and try to buy a 85xx chip for your computer you will find you cant, this does not mean that the g5 chips will never go into computers it only means that they are not selling them yet and does not signify any specific naming convention. moto is sticking with the convention they have used for many years and is sticking with the roadmap they have used for many years. moto isnt going to rain on apple's day by annoucing they have a g5 for computing before apple unveils such a chip. so until then dont think that by scanning moto's site you will find references to a g5/85xx being anything but embedded. this is how they are marketing it now.
apple CANT just call any chip a g4 or a g5 or whatnot. they are using moto's convention.
currently moto does not list the 85xx processors as anything but embedded because they arent selling them right now for anything but embedded. as you can also see by looking at the lower ends of the chart that back in the day of the g1 moto listed did have spearate naming conventions for embedded and computing products and made quite clear they stated this. that has not been the case for many years. if you go to moto's website and try to buy a 85xx chip for your computer you will find you cant, this does not mean that the g5 chips will never go into computers it only means that they are not selling them yet and does not signify any specific naming convention. moto is sticking with the convention they have used for many years and is sticking with the roadmap they have used for many years. moto isnt going to rain on apple's day by annoucing they have a g5 for computing before apple unveils such a chip. so until then dont think that by scanning moto's site you will find references to a g5/85xx being anything but embedded. this is how they are marketing it now.
apple CANT just call any chip a g4 or a g5 or whatnot. they are using moto's convention.
So why can't IBM make the next Powermac chip without Altivec but, instead, with something that works pretty much the same way?
i think we would all prefer to see ibm take over the pro line, but it just doesnt seem likely when moto's already got a chip while ibm doesnt have altivec. its pretty silly when i start thinking about it. ibm has bad ass chips and moto has altivec. if the two would just share (or if ibm would just buy moto's semiconductor department and all pertainent patents) then we would be sitting pretty. but as long as these two keep fighting over apple nothing is going to happen. we will keep getting crappy cips from moto and ibm will keep making amazing chips that get ignored because of a lack of altivec.
i keep hoping the aim alliance will surprise us with ibm buyouts new processors based on ibm tech with moto's altivec and SOI. not much an alliance as it is with moto keeping altivec to themselves. some people around here are convinced ibm's chip is the next processor for the pro line (i dont think they would call it a g5, prolly a new name entirely) but until ibm's altivec clone gets up to speed or ibm just puyts its money where its mouth is and buys moto we are stuck with moto as our only hope for a next gen pro chip.
i keep hoping the aim alliance will surprise us with ibm buyouts new processors based on ibm tech with moto's altivec and SOI. not much an alliance as it is with moto keeping altivec to themselves. some people around here are convinced ibm's chip is the next processor for the pro line (i dont think they would call it a g5, prolly a new name entirely) but until ibm's altivec clone gets up to speed or ibm just puyts its money where its mouth is and buys moto we are stuck with moto as our only hope for a next gen pro chip.
I have the same hopes AL, but with Moto's shares doing so badly in the marketplace, I don't think they will issue licenses to Big Blue so that they get undercut in their lucrative embedded chip business. Anyway, Didn't I hear somewhere in the grapevine that Uncle Steve is pursuing chip research and manufacture in-house, ie; Sand?
As Motorola's biggest Power PC customer, Apple can call the chip anything they want.
But anyway. Everyone, myself included, keeps getting hung up on the hardware aspect of the industry. There's only a few pieces of software that really require 1GZ processor. These days software companies are writing bloated pieces of crap. Think about it, back in the 80's Microsoft Word ran very well on a Mac. Does it run much faster today? Key to the whole thing is the OS. Apple currently has the best consumer OS on the market. Last night I downloaded Flash MX for OS X I put it through the ringer it performed better than Flash 5 (on 500mhz G4). Today I installed Flash MX on my 1.2GZ Micron and after 30 minutes of doing the same test it locked my entire system. On my Mac I was ripping and listening to the new Joey Ramone CD (my vote for album of the year), had IE and PhotoShop opened (gotta love Space), I was also running Top and CPU moniter. On my craptron I was Flash and I had a couple folders opened on my desktop. I was listening to music, but that was on my iPod.
So what's my point, good question. Stop getting hung up on the processor speed and hardware. It's the software that really matters.
That's just my two cents. Expect a TiBook upgrade followed by a G4 iBook.
But anyway. Everyone, myself included, keeps getting hung up on the hardware aspect of the industry. There's only a few pieces of software that really require 1GZ processor. These days software companies are writing bloated pieces of crap. Think about it, back in the 80's Microsoft Word ran very well on a Mac. Does it run much faster today? Key to the whole thing is the OS. Apple currently has the best consumer OS on the market. Last night I downloaded Flash MX for OS X I put it through the ringer it performed better than Flash 5 (on 500mhz G4). Today I installed Flash MX on my 1.2GZ Micron and after 30 minutes of doing the same test it locked my entire system. On my Mac I was ripping and listening to the new Joey Ramone CD (my vote for album of the year), had IE and PhotoShop opened (gotta love Space), I was also running Top and CPU moniter. On my craptron I was Flash and I had a couple folders opened on my desktop. I was listening to music, but that was on my iPod.
So what's my point, good question. Stop getting hung up on the processor speed and hardware. It's the software that really matters.
That's just my two cents. Expect a TiBook upgrade followed by a G4 iBook.
well when it comes to video rendering, the hardware is needed as well, and that's way everyone wants the g5.
So, if I make a business that becomes Apple's biggest customer, by that logic, can I start calling the iMac an iLuxo and the PowerMac a FastBitchMicrosoftBox???? Of course I wouldn't, but the point is that, by that logic, I could.
The only problem with that is that the MS Word of today is FAR more advanced than so many of the previous versions. While it is slow in its nature, it also has been designed to accommodate a large range of different customer situations.
No alarms and no suprises there.
You don't often do large render jobs, either 2 or 3D, do you?! If you want a machine that uses word, no MHz no longer matters, if you want a true work horse, you need more and more power. Just look at SGI who, according to an article I was reading, are linking up something like 512 Itanium processors with 1 Terrabyte of RAM. Can't tell me that they only do that because they are hung up on hardware.
The Motorola roadmap...
...can be interpreted several ways. It does say the G5 is an 85xx chip. It also says that 8xxx chips are not for computers. This points to one of these options:
1) the G5 (Motorola one, anyway) is not going to be used in computers
2) Motorola is abandoning it's naming scheme and using an 8xxx chip in a computer
3) A desktop version of the G5 will be released under the 75xx name
based on what we've gathered from the rumors/news Germanknee and I have decided that the third is most reasonable. Other people may have different opinions.
...can be interpreted several ways. It does say the G5 is an 85xx chip. It also says that 8xxx chips are not for computers. This points to one of these options:
1) the G5 (Motorola one, anyway) is not going to be used in computers
2) Motorola is abandoning it's naming scheme and using an 8xxx chip in a computer
3) A desktop version of the G5 will be released under the 75xx name
based on what we've gathered from the rumors/news Germanknee and I have decided that the third is most reasonable. Other people may have different opinions.
Re: The Motorola roadmap...
Firstly, you will notice that the roadmap is extensive from the G4 back and slim from the G5 up. This shows that the G5 and G6 sections are just a guide and are not complete. Mot have not added the full details of their G5 movement because there is nothing finished to detail. Also, there is nothing to say that the G5 HAS to be either a 7500 or an 8500. The basis for this structure that people keep bringing up is based on the G3 and G4 architecture. Previous to the G3, numbers were 60x for desktops while other systems used 5xx, 5xxx, 8xx and 8xxx. There is no structure for Mot processor naming over the many generations, the stucture only works for 2 generations at a time according to the roadmap.
Firstly, you will notice that the roadmap is extensive from the G4 back and slim from the G5 up. This shows that the G5 and G6 sections are just a guide and are not complete. Mot have not added the full details of their G5 movement because there is nothing finished to detail. Also, there is nothing to say that the G5 HAS to be either a 7500 or an 8500. The basis for this structure that people keep bringing up is based on the G3 and G4 architecture. Previous to the G3, numbers were 60x for desktops while other systems used 5xx, 5xxx, 8xx and 8xxx. There is no structure for Mot processor naming over the many generations, the stucture only works for 2 generations at a time according to the roadmap.
Re: The Motorola roadmap...
What Apple wants to call the chip is entirely up to them.
Personally, I think that Motorola will continue with the G4 for iMac and (eventually) iBooks. IBM will be forced (persuaded) to license Altivec technology for G5s for use in computing applications only. This would be so IBM wouldn't compete against Motorola with a G5 for routers and stuff like that.
BTW, this is just my theory. Based only on conjecture and voodoo.
I too interpret the Roadmap like Catfish and Germanknee. All I was trying to say was that the 8540 would not be the G5 used in any Mac. If Motorola was/is too manufacture the G5 for Apple, it would be of a 75xx derivative. Also, I believe that if Motorola makes a 7500 chip, it would have all of the features listed in the G5 section. If the chip doesn't have those features, then it'll be a 74xx chip.
What Apple wants to call the chip is entirely up to them.
Personally, I think that Motorola will continue with the G4 for iMac and (eventually) iBooks. IBM will be forced (persuaded) to license Altivec technology for G5s for use in computing applications only. This would be so IBM wouldn't compete against Motorola with a G5 for routers and stuff like that.
BTW, this is just my theory. Based only on conjecture and voodoo.
Re: Re: The Motorola roadmap...
What the hell? It just chopped off half my post. Oh well. I was saying that the IBM PPC roadmap says that their next PPC chip will have an integrated SIMD engine. That sounds a lot like Altivec to me.
What the hell? It just chopped off half my post. Oh well. I was saying that the IBM PPC roadmap says that their next PPC chip will have an integrated SIMD engine. That sounds a lot like Altivec to me.
moto is a great and powerful company but apple consists of only 12 percent of moto's market and apple is just too small to dictate anything right now...sounds familiar, unfortunately
i like the idea (maybe naive) that ibm and moto share and help whip the wintel stranglehold on the market
there are definitely many factors involved here and this is my simplistic view of the situation
going against intel is a huge task as amd has found and maybe we all (basic consumers) need to look at other features other than pure clock speed of a processor
my 2 cents
i like the idea (maybe naive) that ibm and moto share and help whip the wintel stranglehold on the market
there are definitely many factors involved here and this is my simplistic view of the situation
going against intel is a huge task as amd has found and maybe we all (basic consumers) need to look at other features other than pure clock speed of a processor
my 2 cents