PowerBook G5 - 'Some Time'

[~Shard~]

I concur. I'm a professional editor who has both a desktop and a laptop. To me, I would gain more benefit from a dual G4 17" Powerbook than a single G5 Powerbook. Nonetheless, I'm upgrading my 1ghz TiBook to a 1.5ghz Albook. 50% speed increase is worth it.

It seems to me that the people who do all the whining are the very people who don't actually -need- the machines. Its about dick measuring. Single Processor G4s, clock for clock, aren't that much slower than a single processor G5 -- at least on the stats I've seen.

This is what I’ve been saying – of course there are the exceptions out there who would love a G5 PowerBooks, but even pro users, like yourself are saying they don’t absolutely need one. Now would it be NICE to have, sure, but that’s not what we’re talking about here...

 

[ifjake]

be patient. and if you feel you must have a G5 to do what you do, get a G5 machine. pro audio and video production on a laptop is currently unrealistic. so just wait.

 

[gopher]

You can wait. The rest of the industry and many consumers who are interested in performance however will not. Current Pentium M laptops already kick the G4’s ***. Screw OS X. If Apple is going to neglect the hardware what’s the point?

What Pentium M can kick these numbers?

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/pages/09.html

The Pentium is nowhere close to the G4s. The problem is programs which aren't optimized for the G4. Thank goodness Apple released Motion. It will make Adobe wish they had optimized Premier sooner.

 

[Hattig]

For me, the issue isn't "G5 is better than G4" when it comes to laptops.

The G4 is perfectly fine, however it has some problems right now, most notably the limited bus bandwidth.

Imagine if Motorola actually put some effort into their processor and released it with a 400MHz front side bus (maybe HyperTransport, so that power consumption doesn't increase over the current bus). Hell, stick a DDR3200 memory controller on the die as well to completely circumvent the memory bandwidth issue. This could be done easily at 130nm without too much effort, and when you hit 90nm just stick another core on the processor to make a dual-core processor in the same space.

Alternatively just use 2 low-power processors in the top end Powerbooks, I'm sure the 17" can cool two ~15W processors if it tried.

But ... Motorola suck.

 

[~Shard~]

Why do people keep saying this? I need a faster computer and a g5 is not going to be fast enough. No computer will ever be fast enough as long as people do renderings and other stuff that takes time. I say a computer is fast enough when I never have to wait for it to finish a task, so dont give me some crap about the g4 being fast enough.
But dont get me wrong, I am not a unsatisfied powerbookuser. I take what I can get from apple (as long as I can afford it), and I am sure they do whatever they can to keep the products as good as possible.

And please dont tell me to go by a tower. I am a student, I want the possibillity to take my computer to school and home on vacations. AND I want the possibilty to work with big illustrator-, photoshop- and cad-files without waiting. I dont want to wait all night to see what a render is going to look like, before I make some changes and start the render all over.

I seriously doubt that I am one of the few who would benefit from a faster cpu. If your point is that the g5 wont be any faster than the current g4, you can of course diregard this post. Just dont tell me people dont need faster computers, it just doesnt make any sense.

First of all, there are many people, pro users included, on this forum who have already said that a G5 isn’t required right now for their work, which is what I was getting at with my initial post. I do appreciate what you would like to do though with your PowerBook, and please note that I did say there are always exceptions – there ARE people out there who could make good use of a G5 PowerBook for what they do. I just think that for lots of people it's either bragging rights, or a dillusion of "since the G5 is the new chip, I have to have it since it's the best and I NEED it".

I also appreciate the fact that many Mac users, (thanks to the longevity of Macs), only have to upgrade their systems every 3-5 years in some cases. As a result, they would like the most “bang for their buck” so to speak, and although they may not need a G5, it would be nice to have one for longevity’s sake. This is completely understandable as well.

No computer will ever be fast enough as long as people do renderings and other stuff that takes time. I say a computer is fast enough when I never have to wait for it to finish a task, so dont give me some crap about the g4 being fast enough.

I totally see where you’re coming from – and that ambitious attitude is the kind that pushes Apple’s R&D environment – never settling for what we have, and always striving to improve things, until we can do amazing, supercomputer-like tasks with ease. However, the flipside of that is, you have to be realistic - otherwise with that kind of attitude, you’re going to be one of those people that is never satisfied. You never want to wait for a task to be complete? So until you can take the entire batch of pre-rendered files of Finding Nemo and render the whole movie in 1 second, a computer won’t be fast enough? Will a computer ever be fast enough then, until the Apple G57 is released in a hundred years or so, which can read your thoughts through its psychic input system?

 

[gopher]

Trust me...it will NOT meet my needs. I've played around with the (now outdated) 1.33 17" set up on Pro Tools. It's not even close to enough. Only a g5 will allow the plug-in count that I need. By the way, my dual 500 tower doesn't do the trick either- not even close- in fact I've put my music on hold until I get a new g5 because I'm running Pro Tools at 99% CPU power with 1024 buffer and I still get that fun little message "CPU out of power". I have 2 record labels waiting for my EP, and I'm waiting for a new g5 and some inspiration.

Have you maxed your RAM? Mac OS X is RAM hungry. Once you give it the RAM it needs the processing power is only a secondary concern.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I'm not too sure it's the G5 that's causing the heat problems. My guess is it's the system controller. It is the major source of heat in the PowerMacs. Apple is going to have to design a controller that will not be overly hot or draw too much power for the PBs. That's where the challenge lies. The 970FX is notebook ready, but Apple needs to design a MoBo and controller that will not overheat or require too much cooling.

Are you sure about the G5 heat dissipation, especially the newer PowerPC 970FX? My understanding is that the G5 isn't a whole lot hotter than the G4. The huge heatsink and fans in the G5 PowerMac are designed that way to allow near-silent cooling of the entire system, rather than to cope with a furnace-like heat output from the G5. The G5 certainly runs much cooler than some of the Pentium 4 chips currently used in shipping x86 notebooks.

According to an article on the PowerPC 970 from arstechnica (link below), the original 0.13um 1.8GHz G5 CPU produces 42 watts...compared to the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 which produces 68.4 watts, and the 1GHz G4e which produces 30 watts. So you're looking at less than a 50% increase in heat output for an 80% increase in core frequency. It also mentions that at 1.2GHz, the first-gen PowerPC 970 produces only 19W...11W less than a G4e running at a 200MHz slower clock speed. The newer 0.09um 970FX G5s will be cooler than this, but as was highlighted in the recent Apple financial results conference call, is being held up because of manufacturing delays at IBM.

I should just clarify this...I'm not saying that heat issues with the G5 probably aren't going to be a major factor in the redesign of the PowerBook G5...I'm just saying that from what I've read, it doesn't seem that the G5 chip actually is 'the mini furnace' that many people claim. It's actually quite a bit cooler than CPUs already being used in common x86 notebooks. It shouldn't be an insurmountable issue for Apple...and I think 'G5 heat issues' are a red herring in a lot of product discussions around here too. As I mentioned before, it seems that PowerMac G5 updates are more likely delayed because of chip shortages from IBM, rather than the oft-repeated reason in these forums of "Apple can't keep the faster G5s cool!!!! OMFG!!!! HOT HOT HOT!!!!"

Does anyone have more up-to-date heat dissipation figures for the PowerPC 970 and the new PowerPC 970FX?

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

 

[SiliconAddict]

Yes, people do complain about battery life and heat issues. Have you held one of the PC laptops? They blow hot air out side vents like hot exhaust out of the rear of a Ferrari. Plus battery life is nil at those high speeds. And have you noticed how thick the cases are? Between 1.5 and 1.7 inches, not nice and thin like the Macs. The Centrinos do get better battery life and are thinner, but the clock and bus speeds are much lower too, more in line with the Macs.

The bus speed I quoted is a fast as is practical keeping in balance speed of the cpu and battery and heat issues.

Bull. We have 1.7Ghz IBM Pentium M laptops here in the office I work at that are 1" thick with a 400Mhz FSB. This thing runs DAMN cool. Does the fan turn on from time to time? Sure. In fact right now I'm doing a stress test on a laptop before I deploy it to the user. The fan is on but short of sticking ear 3" from the vent I can't hear it and the heat? Maybe 90*-95*, if that, coming out of the vent. Frankly I'm NOT impressed by Apple *books that have fans that almost NEVER turn on. A couple friends of mine have iBooks and the base of these things get bloody hot. Enough that I'm concerned for the long term reliability of these systems. (e.g. super hot systems = better chance of hardware failure.) Oh and as for battery life on that laptop I speced out above the system get aprox 4-5 hours depending on what you are doing with the system.

 

[gskiser]

Quick comparison:

Xserve G5 (up to dual proc.)-1.73 inches (4.4 cm) high by 17.6 inches (44.7 cm) wide by 28 inches (71.1 cm) deep = 852.54 in^3 @ 33-37 lbs

PB17- Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm) by Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm) by Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm) = 157.08 in^3 @ 6.9 lbs

PB12 - Height: 1.18 inches (3.0 cm) by Width: 10.9 inches (27.7 cm) by Depth: 8.6 inches (21.9 cm) = 110.61 in^3 @ 4.6 lbs

the overall volume of the Xserve is about 5.4 times bigger than the PB17 and 7.7 times bigger than the PB12. Remember that the internal volume of the PBs are greatly reduced due to the screen and keyboard which do not have analogous components in the Xserve (whereas you could say the HD, DVD drives, etc, are analogous between the two).

That Apple can get two G5s into something at least 5.4 times larger, does not mean that they can put it into a PB at the moment. However, the low 970fx yields could be creating a ripple effect across the pro lines, pushing back PM and PB updates.

I disagree. The reason the Xserve is 5 times bigger is not just because of the G5. Its a server for goodness sakes. One could equally argue that its got 10 times more than we'd even want in a laptop. I don't need dual 2.0ghz G5's in a laptop. I'd take a single G5 running at 1.5ghz. The single processor this lower speed wouldn't warrent as much power and cooling as is required in the Xserve. Another example, I don't need 8gb of RAM. I'd be happy with 2gb to start out with in PBG5. The 970fx is not the reason that the Xserve is 5x larger. After seing it put into a only 1.73" high Xserve plus, knowing what we know about the 970fx's heat and power consumption when its clocked back, its not unreasonable to wonder why Apple cannot get it into a laptop.

I do however completely agree with your theory that the low 970fx yields are having a ripple effect on PM as well as PB. I see apple's PBG4 update yesterday simply as a filler to buy a little time. It took no effort, simply use the same enclosure and pop in a pin-for-pin 1.5G4, throw in a 4x Superdrive, and call it new. Hardly anything to get excited about. I do think the 970fx delay forced them to do this though. I don't think however they did it because of logistical issues in getting the 970fx into a PB. I think this has been a huge priority for them since the release of the 970fx. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a working prototype but are waiting for the 970fx production to ramp up. Obviously, the PMG5 gets first dibs on the 970fx's once production is in full force, I think we'll see PBG5s sooner than some think. I predict we'll see PBG5's either WWDC or the Paris Expo. Apple knows the G4 is an embarrassment in their professional line, and if the 970fx's become plentiful, I don't see a huge logistical reason why the cannot be used in a PBG5 if they're scaled back to 1.5 or 1.6. I just cannot see Apple getting 9 more months use out of these 1.5ghz G4, especially if the PMG5 does it 2.6-3ghz this summer as anticipated.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I'm not too sure it's the G5 that's causing the heat problems. My guess is it's the system controller. It is the major source of heat in the PowerMacs.

The system controller and FSB is 1Ghz. Of course its going to throw off a crap load of heat. Drop that sucker down to 400Mhz and I can guarantee you it will run a heck of a lot cooler. The question is HOW COOL and only Apple engineers can determine that.

 

[sharky2313]

Apple has to release a g5 powerbook this year and they will. Apple makes way too much money on the portable solutions. As their own numbers reveal many switchers actually by laptops not desktops.

I predicate that Apple will release a g5 powerbook by the Fall 2004 and quickly kick up the ibook to the powerbook speed levels. Then all will rejoice in Apple land. I would never, never purchase this upgrade. People need to vote with their pocketbooks. If no one purchases the pressure will be on.

 

[gskiser]

I also appreciate the fact that many Mac users, (thanks to the longevity of Macs), only have to upgrade their systems every 3-5 years in some cases. As a result, they would like the most “bang for their buck” so to speak, and although they may not need a G5, it would be nice to have one for longevity’s sake. This is completely understandable as well.

I completely agree. I dont want a PBG5 for 'bragging rights' or for the raw processing speed. I want it because it will last for 5 years. The G4 will not. While apple may 'support' the G4 for several years to some capacity, it's not going to be able to utilize a lot of the features that Apple will introduce down the road long term. I don't see why people don't see the big picture. This transition is even more critical than it was with the G3 to G4 transition. With 64-bit being the future for Apple, the 64-bit G5 is completely different in terms of longevity, than the 32-bit G4. While we don't need the power, we want the ability to have a processor we can grow into (instead of grow out of) in the next year or two when 64-bit OS and applications becomes a reality.

 

[andiwm2003]

how much faster is a G5 anyway?

how much faster is a single 1.6 G5 over the 1.5 PB?

how much for a photoshop filter?
how much for rotating an image in photoshop?
how much to scroll a powerpoint presentation (many pics)?
how much for recalculating a soundfile?

my guess it's 10%-20%. so as a nonprofessional user would you notice the difference?
has anybody some experience with a 1.6 G5 and a 1.25 PB (since the 1.5 isn't out long enough)?

andi

 

[Bhennies]

Have you maxed your RAM? Mac OS X is RAM hungry. Once you give it the RAM it needs the processing power is only a secondary concern.

RAM won't help me all that much in this situation. It's the CPU that runs out of steam. Pro Tools is a very cache and processor hungry program. Thanks anyway...

 

[TyleRomeo]

Here comes the nuclear laptop...
No, absolutely freaking no way. The G4's are hot as they are, cramming two into a PowerBook is impossible. Have you seen the heat sinks in the last Dual G4 tower revision? You would not want to have a notebook 20cm thick now, would you?

The future is G5 (single).

so then the next powerbook has to be a G5. And we may have to wait another year for it then. is that what you're saying, or do you think there will be another g4 upgrade. besides the 7447 run much cooler than the 7455 chips in the towers.

Tyler

 

[Lancetx]

Perspective

For those that say Apple hasn't been keeping up speed wise with their notebooks, I found this comparison rather interesting. This compares the speed of the PowerBook models on 9/1/03 to those available today, a span of only about 7 1/2 months.

12" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 867 MHz Today: 1.33 GHz (+53.4%)
15" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 867 MHz Today: 1.33 GHz (+53.4%)
15" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 1 GHz Today: 1.5 GHz (+50%)
17" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 1 GHz Today: 1.5 GHz (+50%)

Seeing as how each model has had an increase of at least 50% in less than 8 months time, I really don't see what all of the complaining is about.

 

[otter-boy]

I disagree. The reason the Xserve is 5 times bigger is not just because of the G5. Its a server for goodness sakes. One could equally argue that its got 10 times more than we'd even want in a laptop. I don't need dual 2.0ghz G5's in a laptop. I'd take a single G5 running at 1.5ghz. The single processor this lower speed wouldn't warrent as much power and cooling as is required in the Xserve. Another example, I don't need 8gb of RAM. I'd be happy with 2gb to start out with in PBG5. The 970fx is not the reason that the Xserve is 5x larger. After seing it put into a only 1.73" high Xserve plus, knowing what we know about the 970fx's heat and power consumption when its clocked back, its not unreasonable to wonder why Apple cannot get it into a laptop.

Granted, it is a server and has a few things the PB does not: more memory, AC power converter, etc. What I was talking about is the physical space needed to dissipate heat: more air volume equals better ability to move heat away from the mobo and processor. If the dual 2 GHz G5 is 10x what you would need in a PB, you already have much more than you need in a 1.5 GHz G4 PB. You state that 1.73" isn't that big; compared to the width of a PM, you are right, but compared to the actual interior height of a PB, you could argue the exact opposite, that it is very large by comparison. The internal height of a PB17 (external height minus screen minus keyboard (maybe minus battery)) is most likely under half the height of an Xserve . That reduced height would significantly hamper air-flow. Unless they find another way to move heat away from the processor and mobo, it will be a hot laptop.

Anyway, as others have noted, the G5 is not significantly faster than the G4 at similar clock speeds, but it does scale much higher and is more ready for the computing needs of the future. It will be in the PB soon, but it is not nearly as simple as G5 Xserve = G5 PB.

 

[gskiser]

Granted, it is a server and has a few things the PB does not: more memory, AC power converter, etc. What I was talking about is the physical space needed to dissipate heat: more air volume equals better ability to move heat away from the mobo and processor. If the dual 2 GHz G5 is 10x what you would need in a PB, you already have much more than you need in a 1.5 GHz G4. You state that 1.73" isn't that big; compared to the width of a PM, you are right, but compared to the actual interior height of a PB, you could argue the exact opposite, that it is very large by comparison. The internal height of a PB17 (external height minus screen minus keyboard (maybe minus battery)) is most likely under half the height of an Xserve . That reduced height would significantly hamper air-flow. Unless they find another way to move heat away from the processor and mobo, it will be a hot laptop.

Anyway, as others have noted, the G5 is not significantly faster than the G4 at similar clock speeds, but it does scale much higher and is more ready for the computing needs of the future. It will be in the PB soon, but it is not nearly as simple as G5 Xserve = G5 PB.

Points noted, and I do understand and agree with you that its not nearly as simple as the Xserve. However, I do think it possible. Apple engineers continually suprise us. As I mentioned before, and I agree with you, it is more ready for the computing needs of the future than the G4...which is what I'm mainly concerned with.

 

[otter-boy]

Apple engineers continually suprise us. As I mentioned before, and I agree with you, it is more ready for the computing needs of the future than the G4...which is what I'm mainly concerned with.

To log my vote: I am waiting until the PB goes G5 before buying one (switching back to Apple from PC, which my wife has already done). I am looking at owning my next computer as long as I've owned this one (4+ years). I can wait a little bit longer because I mostly write (fiction) on mine and surf the web. I would like to do some web design and look forward to using Photoshop on the G5. I will also be glad to be able to work on a laptop without having it plugged in (my battery has lasted this long but is not good for extended unplugged use).

I do think that the G5 will make it into the PB within the next year (especially considering that IBM is already working hard on its G5 successor, which is said to be even more mobile-ready than the 970). After the 970fx production constraints come down, we'll really see what the chip is capable of.

As long as I'm not making a living off of my laptop (and barely making a living anyway), I can't justify buying a 32-bit computer when a 64-bit computer is just around the corner.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the PBG5 will look like and how it performs.
Although that PB 1.5GHz 15-inch with superdrive and ATi 9700 with 128MB RAM graphics board looks awfully tempting.

 

[iPC]

If you take a comparable Pc laptop processor say the Pentium Mobile, they max out at 1.7Ghz. So the 1.5Ghz G4 certianly isn't slow. Not as fast a Dual 2.0Ghz G5, but not slow either.

Also, the Radeon 9700 graphics is really top notch. You certianly can't complain about the video card! Dell doesn't have anything above a Radeon 9600 for their notebooks.

NVIDIA® Quadro FX Go1000

Found in the Dell Precision Mobile Workstation M60.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Seeing as how each model has had an increase of at least 50% in less than 8 months time, I really don't see what all of the complaining is about.

You NEED to understand. The CPU's speed may have increased but the overall system speed still is drastically lacking. It's like having not only a automatic in a Porsche, ick, but going out and finding the world's crappiest automatic transmission and tossing it into that Porsche. The overall performance of the car is neutered. Apple has a beautifully crafted, well equipped, feature rich, slow POS on their hands. 50% speed increase is relative when the likely outcome for that performance increase may be negligible. As someone else posted I'm going to be VERY interested in seeing what benchmark results barefeats.com comes out with in comparison to 1Ghz, or 1.33Ghz systems. I'm betting the performance is going to be negligible simply because the system bus is being strangled. As I, and a few others, have commented in several other threads this is the EXACT same predicament the G4 PowerMac was in pre-G5.

 

[Wash!!]

For all you complainers...

I you are such engineering geniuses and electronic wizards and can bend and break the laws of physics. make your mark send Apple your designs or better yet get a job with them and teach them a thing or two.

 

[SiliconAddict]

What Pentium M can kick these numbers?

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/pages/09.html

The Pentium is nowhere close to the G4s. The problem is programs which aren't optimized for the G4. Thank goodness Apple released Motion. It will make Adobe wish they had optimized Premier sooner.

Give me a break. You can NOT compare performance by pure chip specs. Are those number from desktops or laptops. Big freaking diff in RAM speed, FSB speed, hard drive speed, etc, etc. The Pentium M is strictly a laptop CPU and as I stated before:

That is real world benchmarks handled by a Mac advo site. The fact of the matter is the G4 is being strangled by its system bus. You can throw any type of spec you want at me because at the end of that day under the right circumstances I could probably setup a test platform that proves undeniably that a 200Mhz Pentium Pro kicks the crap out of a 3Ghz Pentium 4. Tests can and are rigged all the time. But barefeats.com is a ligit site and screeching about optimizations isn't going to change the fact that the G4 PowerBook is being soundly trounced by its PC Pentium M counterpart.

PS- hehe. Had to laugh at your optimization comments. The CPU Motion is optimized for is the G5. No mention of the G4 anywhere on www.apple.com/motion 's site.

Motion is fine-tuned to maximize the hardware and architecture of the Power Mac G5 and Mac OS X Panther. The result? Real-time on-screen responsiveness and interactivity that feels like a dedicated system. Move and resize video layers interactively, add filters at full resolution and watch keyframe and behavior animations come to life instantly. If you’re using Motion’s advanced particle generator, you can adjust the angle, color and rate in real-time while the effect is playing.

 

[Zaty]

For those that say Apple hasn't been keeping up speed wise with their notebooks, I found this comparison rather interesting. This compares the speed of the PowerBook models on 9/1/03 to those available today, a span of only about 7 1/2 months.

12" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 867 MHz Today: 1.33 GHz (+53.4%)
15" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 867 MHz Today: 1.33 GHz (+53.4%)
15" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 1 GHz Today: 1.5 GHz (+50%)
17" PowerBook - 9/1/03: 1 GHz Today: 1.5 GHz (+50%)

Seeing as how each model has had an increase of at least 50% in less than 8 months time, I really don't see what all of the complaining is about.

Well, the thing is that the 12" and the 17" were announced in Jan 03, the 15" even back in Nov 02" So the span you mention is in fact 15 1/2 months for the 12" and the 17" and 17 1/2 months for the 15". But still, that's not a bad progress.

 

[adamjay]

Well, the thing is that the 12" and the 17" were announced in Jan 03, the 15" even back in Nov 02" So the span you mention is in fact 15 1/2 months for the 12" and the 17" and 17 1/2 months for the 15". But still, that's not a bad progress.

no kidding... every single one of those mentioned powerbooks got updated later in the month of September '03... nice way to Doctor the point.

if and when the G5 PB's come out, they MUST have 1MB L2 and at least 266mhz FSB's... otherwise, its pointless and outside of any new case design they will be essentially a speedbump to the current G4's. and if those kind of spec's aren't seen in the first PB G5's, i'll probably be picking up a discontinued or refurb current G4. Waves Linear Multiband plugin decided to be a real processor pig today for some reason... so i will definitely need to upgrade by the end of the year.