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.
PowerBook G5... Not Yet...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
stealthboy said:
I was wondering this myself. Some posts this morning made we want to offer the number to the suicide help hot-line.
I have a 1.5 GHz G4 PB and it runs just about everything pretty quickly. I run several Java Apps (Eclipse and MagicDraw) for software development as well as a dozen other good sized apps regularly. They all seem pretty snappy to me. Are they as fast as my Dual 2 GHz PowerMac was? Not by a long shot. But that doesn't make it unusable. I tend to think that if I were to up the RAM to 2 GB I'd get really good speed in most cases. If you're waiting years to get a PB because of the G5, have fun. I'm enjoying my G4 while you wait.
That said, I can see cases where a G5 *could* make a difference. In particular for those who need to do a lot of visual manipulation & rendering, or for those who want to use a PB for their recording studio. Also, let us not forget that Doom 3 supposedly requires a G5 chip. :-(
They can't even get the G5 to work right in the desktop enclosure. They must be a long way off from getting it to fit into a Powerbook. The problems with the latest batch of G5s (2.0 and 2.5) are rediculous. Fans revving when using the eraser tool in Photoshop. come on! And some of us are on our 3rd or 4th replacement with the same problem. Yet apple wont acknowledge that it's a major issue. Unbelieveable.
deputy_doofy
macrumors 65816
While far-fetched, I'm more interested to know if Apple and IBM are already hard at work on the next generation chip. I don't care if it's called G5 or G6, but something based on the Power 5 chip and/or the upcoming Cell chip.
The current G5 chip feels like a stopgap chip anyway. The Power 4 chip has been around about the same length of the G4, I think. The G5 just seems like IBM's way of saying, "Looky here, Motorola. This is what the G4 would have been like if WE made it."
Only time will tell...
The current G5 chip feels like a stopgap chip anyway. The Power 4 chip has been around about the same length of the G4, I think. The G5 just seems like IBM's way of saying, "Looky here, Motorola. This is what the G4 would have been like if WE made it."
Only time will tell...
1984
macrumors 6502a
billystlyes said:
They wouldn't be using the current G5 chips (as used in their desktops) as that would be just stupid. It is well known that IBM has been working on G5 chips that are smaller, take up less power and run far less hot. Though not nearly as bad as the chips they are using now, I imagine they still run hotter than the G4 which is the problem. I expect Apple to announce the PowerBook G5s and faster PowerMac G5s along with Tiger at the WWDC in June which should be a huge G5/64-bit event.
Forget about G5. Where is the 7448 core G4 CPU that is supposely cut down the watt usage by almost half (less than 10W at 1.4GHz) and run at the speed at 1.5GHz or faster? Can't believe Apple are still using 7447A core given such a long time between upgrade.
Currently a 1.5GHz 7447A using energy between 21W to 30W. Before that there were never a Apple G4 book running higher than 22W. That's really unacceptable.
Currently a 1.5GHz 7447A using energy between 21W to 30W. Before that there were never a Apple G4 book running higher than 22W. That's really unacceptable.
Eniregnat
macrumors 68000
Even if the G5 PB has made it past R&D and is in the pipeline, the earliest that it can be released is about 3 months from now, but more likely anything from 6months to a year. Apple doesnt release products with in the same line in quick succession. Apple also knows that the current speed bump and future G4PB improvements wont create the must have for those that always require the LAG (latest and greatest). I think that Apple figured the G5PB would arrive sooner, as they migrated their lower end Macs from the G3, bringing their line to just 2 processors (good) but shrinking the difference between their low-end portables and high end portables (bad). I look forward to owning a rev B G5 PB, unless the software I use requires the use of a G5. Perhaps it will coneiside with a major upgrade to Shake, now that would be a demo- realtime compositing on a G5PB.
If the G5s do come, it will be a boon for the cash strapped, as good G4PBs will go on sale and they would still have a good product life.
If the G5s do come, it will be a boon for the cash strapped, as good G4PBs will go on sale and they would still have a good product life.
imac
what if you took off the metal stand thingy from the back of the imac and hooked it up to a car battery...and voila! powerbook g5....i don't really care that much about the powerbook g5...but i am curious why they say it's so hard to cool yet they were so proud of squeezing it into the 2" thin imac
completely O/T...i was at compusa yesterday and i THOUGHT i had seen the 30" display before but turns out what i had seen was the 23"...yesterday i saw the actual 30" and my jaw dropped...whoa.....it looks so much bigger than what i think of 30" as being...and then looking at the ibook, 12" looked so much smaller than i what i think of 12" as being.....biggest screen i've ever had is that on my emac.....that 30" is so dreamy in comparison.......
what if you took off the metal stand thingy from the back of the imac and hooked it up to a car battery...and voila! powerbook g5....i don't really care that much about the powerbook g5...but i am curious why they say it's so hard to cool yet they were so proud of squeezing it into the 2" thin imac
completely O/T...i was at compusa yesterday and i THOUGHT i had seen the 30" display before but turns out what i had seen was the 23"...yesterday i saw the actual 30" and my jaw dropped...whoa.....it looks so much bigger than what i think of 30" as being...and then looking at the ibook, 12" looked so much smaller than i what i think of 12" as being.....biggest screen i've ever had is that on my emac.....that 30" is so dreamy in comparison.......
deputy_doofy
macrumors 65816
mactastic said:
Well, IBM is supposedly seeing 24% performace gains (@ the SAME power consumption) with their new strained-silicon technique, which means:
2.5 + 24% (which is 0.6) = 3.1GHz
2.3 + 24% (.552) = 2.852GHz
2.0 + 24% (.48) = 2.48GHz
That's not bad at all...
quackattack
macrumors 6502a
mraible said:
If you spend any time with Java then surely you've noticed that the JVM on the mac SUCKS ASS. My friend made a simple "defender" game in Java that sucks about 20% of his CPU on a pentium 3 and runs smooth as heck, but eats 100% of the cpu on my 1.5 ghz powerbook and is jerky. The JVM needs a lot of work.
Steven
stealthboy said:
Bragging rights, man. The concept that you have the same chip in your laptop as the one in your desktop. I don't fall into this category, since I have a dual G4 - it's plenty fast for me, so I'm not hyperventilating about the lack of a G5 laptop.
That's my guess... it's all about the hype. The majority of us on this board are suckers for marketing as much as anyone else, and we want to be able to tell people non-chalantly, "Yup, she's a G5."
Lacero
macrumors 604
We really need to get off Steve's case about his promise of 3GHz. I don't doubt his good intentions, however, transitioning to 90nm proved harder than first thought for the entire industry.
Secondly, what's holding back a G5 laptop are cooling issues, but more importantly, trying to cram that hot processor into a 1" thick enclosure will require some engineering magic. Unless the PB can support more than 4GB RAM, there is little need for a 64-bit chip, unless they can go dual core G4 or boost the FSB by at least 200%.
Secondly, what's holding back a G5 laptop are cooling issues, but more importantly, trying to cram that hot processor into a 1" thick enclosure will require some engineering magic. Unless the PB can support more than 4GB RAM, there is little need for a 64-bit chip, unless they can go dual core G4 or boost the FSB by at least 200%.
Lacero said:
I love it when the Apple fans make excuses for Apple's broken promises and failure to deliver performance that can arguably hold its own in the computing world. The Dothans are kicking ass over the Powerbooks, especially in tasks that involve a lot of memory. Those tasks include multimedia, video, and audio stuff, which the Macs are supposed to excel at. I guess not.
Steven
wordmunger said:
I'm just one of those that think things always take longer than originally expected. I hope I'm wrong. I hope you're right.
MacTruck
macrumors 65816
G5 Powerbook already shipping in Taiwan
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/lapt...erbook-ibook-g5-rumors-from-taiwan-029750.php
Check out the pic of the new G5. That baby is Fat!
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/lapt...erbook-ibook-g5-rumors-from-taiwan-029750.php
Check out the pic of the new G5. That baby is Fat!
If any of Freescales time lines are valid there is still good potential for acceptable performance increases out of the G4. In fact I suspect that people could end being shocked by the performance.
The problem is that this implies 32 bit hardware/code. Any way you look at it 32 bit hardware has a very short time before it is replaced with 64 bit hardware. It won't be a case of possibly better performance that moves people away form 32 bit rather the potential that 64 bit addressing offers.
For portables though I see 32 bit as the only option Apple has at the moment. A dual core G4+ running at 2 GHz with an integrated memory controller would be an awesome portable. It just would not be 64 bit compatible. When that would become a problem is an open question.
Dave
The problem is that this implies 32 bit hardware/code. Any way you look at it 32 bit hardware has a very short time before it is replaced with 64 bit hardware. It won't be a case of possibly better performance that moves people away form 32 bit rather the potential that 64 bit addressing offers.
For portables though I see 32 bit as the only option Apple has at the moment. A dual core G4+ running at 2 GHz with an integrated memory controller would be an awesome portable. It just would not be 64 bit compatible. When that would become a problem is an open question.
Dave
notjustjay said:
