PowerBook Updates? Dual G4 Core?

[matticus008]

Note that the PowerPC architecture was created by Motorola/Freescale, and the current G4s, obviously, and future G4s are obviously based on that.

Furthermore. A dual core processor from freescale would be a next generation, and G5 would be perfectly reasonable, or G5M or something of that sort.


I would say that the only person who has a "tenuous grip on reality" is one who thinks that Apple would limit their chip choices because of a NAMING CONVENTION.

But anyway, a dual core "G4" would be better than any G5 that'll be available for a laptop anytime soon. So why are you all deadset against the very idea?

Sure, its almost certainly not ready yet. And I personally would be happily surprised if we even got a 7448 soon. But the dual core freescale processors are definitely prime candidates.

A dual-core G4 isn't a next generation, it's a next iteration. As has been argued, G5 comes with the 64-bit stipulation because of marketing. I completely agree, however, that Apple wouldn't limit chip choices based on a naming convention. Apple can use whatever it wants, but that naming convention does restrict, well, the name that they use.

No one is (okay, probably someone, but most of us aren't) against dual-core G4's...just against the notion that Apple will try to get away with calling them G5's. That's the idea at stake here.

 

[squatch]

The single-core 7448 is the most likely candidate for the next round of updates. Unlike the dual-core G4, the single-core 7448 is supposed to be available right about now. Of course, if that's what Apple is going to put into the powerbook, then all we'll see is a speedbump to 1.67 Ghz. The 1 MB of L2 cache should offer a significant improvement in performance, though. As for the 200 Mhz bus... Apple would have to redesign the current powerbooks for that to be effective. And if they're using the 7448 as a drop-in replacement, they may not go to that trouble. But who knows?

I TOTALLY agree with everyone who says the 7448 will be in the next Powerbook update. Here are my reasons:

1. This is the only chip in the forseeable feature that is either available or soon to be ready for mass production.

2. This chip would NOT require a huge overhaul of the current design. Apple has easily upgraded the system bus on all their products before using the same form, so it wouldn't be any different for the Powerbook since the 7448 is pin compatible with the 7447A.

3. A G5 Powerbook would most likely be introduced at the WWDC. This reasoning is 2 fold:

a. Apple would want a big event to show this puppy off to the world.

b. This would make the most sense to introduce it in order to show developers that now over half their line and all the professional line is 64-bit compatible and with Tiger having 64-bit extensions (Tiger being released by then, before 1H 2005), they would have no excuse not to code their software to utilize the 64-bit advantage.​

Yes, I know the 970GX is probably also coming soon, but according to its intended purpose (a single core version of the 970MP) and that it doesn't initially have the type of power management benefits a laptop chip needs, I see this as being included as a dual chip configuration of a PowerMac update, and a single chip option in the iMac updates.

The reason the Powerbook update hasn't occurred as of yet is likely due to acquiring enough chips from FreeScale. Since it was not introduced at MacWorld, it would make sense that Apple would not use the month of January to introduce a product update so as to not take away focus from all of the product that were introduced. Hence, a February or March update of the Powerbook and PowerMac makes incredible sense. Save the iMac for April.

As much as I and many others would love to see a dual-core G4 or G5 chip in a Powerbook as soon as possible, I just don't see this happening until 2H 2005.

 

[billystlyes]

Not water down a true G5, but take a dual-core G4 and call it a G5M. And yes, it would stink. I don't expect Apple to do it, but it's been two years since the introduction of the G5 processor, and Apple needs the marketing advantages that the G5 name brings. They won't call it a G5, but there's always the possibility that they'll give it a new, similar name, like a G5.

That said, there's really nothing wrong with the G4 design. Even in Tiger, 64-bit support in OS X is minimal at best, and most apps won't benefit from it. And clock-for-clock, the G4 is generally as good as a G5. The G5 can hit higher clock speeds -- but that advantage is probably going to be lost when fitting it into a notebook. So a dual-core G4 would certainly be nice. I just don't believe it's going to happen.

I don't either. I think its going to be a true G5 with some sort of Centrino type battery management.

 

[dguisinger]

A dual-core G4 isn't a next generation, it's a next iteration. As has been argued, G5 comes with the 64-bit stipulation because of marketing. I completely agree, however, that Apple wouldn't limit chip choices based on a naming convention. Apple can use whatever it wants, but that naming convention does restrict, well, the name that they use.

No one is (okay, probably someone, but most of us aren't) against dual-core G4's...just against the notion that Apple will try to get away with calling them G5's. That's the idea at stake here.

Exactly, the name signifies compatibility and features. Runs on any mac with a G5. Imagine if they named it a G5 without 64-bit processing. Or what if they named it a G5, but left the byte-swapping instruction in? Thats a problem in and of itself, eg: All of a sudden an older version of code used in Virtual PC would work on some G5s and not others.

There is a reason for the naming, and Apple will not dilute or confuse customers by taking an old architecture and passing it off as a G5.

 

[yamabushi]

I think that Apple would probably update the bus to 200MHz if they choose to use the 7448 in the next revision. Therefore the expected frequency bump could be a multiple of 100MHz, assuming they would use half speed bus multiples. So the new speeds might be 1.5/1.6GHz or 1.6/1.7GHz. However, if Think Secret is right about the new frequencies but Apple is using the 7448 then they obviously will not be upgrading the bus after all, which would suck. Even a minor improvement in bus speed would go a long ways towards reducing the data "log jams" that occur frequently with current G4 chipsets.

 

[macidiot]

The only problem for Apple using dual-core G4s for PowerBooks is that they will likely be more efficient -- if not downright outperform -- any G5 they can stick in there. That's a real marketing problem for them with all the hype about G5 PowerBooks. Personally I would love to see dual-core G4s put to use until the G5 is really ready for that application, which it clearly isn't yet.

They could pull a wintel naming stunt and call the dual-core g4 a "G5 mobility" or something...that would solve the marketing issue.

And I wouldn't mind a dual-core mini for the next rev.

 

[dguisinger]

I don't either. I think its going to be a true G5 with some sort of Centrino type battery management.

Everyone likes to make it sound like its hard to build a laptop CPU. But CPU vendors know perfectly well how to do this, they've been doing it for years. IBM made the G3s, they also help AMD with their mobile athlons. Intel has the Pentium M. Its not that hard for people who know what they are doing. And IBM has had at a minimum 2 years since the G5 introduction, if not much more. I would not be surprised if they are going to release a mobile chip soon.

Also, more for the nay-sayers. Apple paid IBM a ton of cash to develop the G5 architecture. Motorola wasn't living up to their contracts over and over. Sure, IBM stumbled a bit now; but so has Intel... if the competition can't get any faster, its okay that Apple is catching up at half the pace... Intel has been stuck within 100MHz for like the past year. Apple is very happy with IBM, and I'm sure IBM whom invested a ton of cash in the project themselves would not let Apple take things back to Motorola --- infact Motorola and IBM broke their aliance a long time ago. So where does that leave us? IBM's technology, IBM's fabrication processes, etc are all with IBM. Apple is happy with IBM. Freescale is targetting routers and embedded market apps, not PCs. The G4 only exists in the lowest of low-end apps with Apple right now, other than the PowerBook which is vastly over due.

I personally think it will be a small speed bump right now waiting for a 970gx. That is clear to me. Apple is looking to lose the Freescale connection. Infact, remember the G5 970fx is cheaper than the current G4. Apple would love to get the G5 in the eMac and Mac Mini but can't make them faster than a PowerBook. Once the powerbook is out 6 months you will see the others get the G5 as well.

Someone tried to shoot my case down with availablity. What availability problems? Apple always has problems when they launch, and the G5 chip had problems at first---but those are worked out, and IBM has several fabs capable of making the G5 if they need to. Its not like Apple says in 5 days we are releasing product, be preparink order for world domination..... no, they let IBM know their roadmap a year in advance. Also, remember, XBox 2 is around the corner, probably using a 970GX varient. Supplies of that chip will be huge, they will have several large markets to fill. IBM isnt stupid, they know how to make chips.... if you want we can look up the hundreds of companies they build them for. They are damn good at it.

 

[dguisinger]

They could pull a wintel naming stunt and call the dual-core g4 a "G5 mobility" or something...that would solve the marketing issue.

Actually its called the Pentium M, not the Pentium 4 M. The Pentium 4 Mobile is actually based on the Pentium 4, very few companies use it.

G5 mobility would still be a marketing nightmare when they say "Requires a G5 or higher" and a version of it doesn't work right. NVidia made that mistake a few years ago, rebranding an older card under the new name with a letter designation, really made it hard for customers to understand what was going on. Apple is too smart for that type of mistake.

 

[matticus008]

Actually its called the Pentium M, not the Pentium 4 M. The Pentium 4 Mobile is actually based on the Pentium 4, very few companies use it.

G5 mobility would still be a marketing nightmare when they say "Requires a G5 or higher" and a version of it doesn't work right. NVidia made that mistake a few years ago, rebranding an older card under the new name with a letter designation, really made it hard for customers to understand what was going on. Apple is too smart for that type of mistake.

As I recall, nVidia pulled that stunt more than once. Then again, they are the masters of 80,000 concurrent product models so you can never really be sure which one it is you are buying. At least the choices are easier on the Mac end.

 

[dnnx]

But hasnt IBM had trouble with G5 production lately? even considering another plant I heard.
Seems to soon for a G5 powerbook for me. G4 or G4.5 is good for me, especially since my PB is dead and I need a new one now!

 

[aswitcher]

TS has been right so far this year, so I think no dual core, and along with some speed and capacity tweaks, maybe a slight price drop...

 

[dguisinger]

But hasnt IBM had trouble with G5 production lately? even considering another plant I heard.
Seems to soon for a G5 powerbook for me. G4 or G4.5 is good for me, especially since my PB is dead and I need a new one now!

Considering a new plant could mean manythings. They just don't make G5s in that fab, its a small portion of the chips they make. As usually happens, they will build or renovate other fabs to the 90nm process once they have everything squared away in the first fab.

As far as production goes, I dont think they have had issues lately. Availability seems to be very good from Apple on G5 products. And they are flying off the shelves last I heard. IBM may have trouble keeping up if Apple all of a sudden switched all lines to a G5 overnight, but Apple has been slowing switching over which is a good thing.

As far as speed increases go, we should probably see a new powermac revision sometime soon as well. We will probably be at 3GHz this summer, or 2.8GHz. Which is about a year later than steve wanted, but tahts okay, Intel has barely moved as well. There is an actual MHz barrier. As you go smaller and smaller, you also have more current leakage, meaning more wasted power, more heat. The game is about to end I'm sure, with more exotic technologies coming. Atleast IBM has some interesting insulator technologies that they refuse to license to Intel.

 

[dguisinger]

TS has been right so far this year, so I think no dual core, and along with some speed and capacity tweaks, maybe a slight price drop...

I would agree with that. I'd hate to see them keep the current screens though. One of the reasons I wont buy a powerbook is the lackluster screen resolution compared to my Dell. My Dell has 1920x1200. Let me know when Apple lets me fit this on a Mac portable and I'll buy it right away.

Also of note, the eMac is due for a revision. I will make my prediction: If Apple choses not to disconinue the eMac, they will revise it to use the Mac Mini motherboard to avoid charges of having to inventory and up-keep the design of several different low-end boards.

 

[Caiwyn]

Note that the PowerPC architecture was created by Motorola/Freescale, and the current G4s, obviously, and future G4s are obviously based on that.

Furthermore. A dual core processor from freescale would be a next generation, and G5 would be perfectly reasonable, or G5M or something of that sort.

You need to get something straight: "G5" is Apple's brand, and no one else's. Freescale doesn't make a "G4." They make a 32-bit PowerPC chip that they call the MPC7447A. Apple buys it and rebrands it as the "G4 processor." By that same token, IBM doesn't make a "G5." They make the PPC970FX, which Apple buys and rebrands as the "G5 processor."

My point is simple. Apple is not going to release a 32-bit dual-core chip from Freescale and call it a "G5," because they've spent too much time, effort, and money on marketing that presents the G5 brand in terms of 64-bit capability.

I would say that the only person who has a "tenuous grip on reality" is one who thinks that Apple would limit their chip choices because of a NAMING CONVENTION.

What the hell are you babbling about? I'm not saying Apple would limit their chip choices. I'm saying that Apple isn't going to call it a G5 unless it's 64-bit. You were suggesting that they take a dual-core G4 and call it a G5, and that's not going to happen.

But anyway, a dual core "G4" would be better than any G5 that'll be available for a laptop anytime soon. So why are you all deadset against the very idea?

Have you not been paying attention? Most of us have already said a dual-core G4 would be as good or even preferable to a G5. The problem is that such a chip DOES NOT EXIST, and won't for at least six months!

 

[macidiot]

Actually its called the Pentium M, not the Pentium 4 M. The Pentium 4 Mobile is actually based on the Pentium 4, very few companies use it.

G5 mobility would still be a marketing nightmare when they say "Requires a G5 or higher" and a version of it doesn't work right. NVidia made that mistake a few years ago, rebranding an older card under the new name with a letter designation, really made it hard for customers to understand what was going on. Apple is too smart for that type of mistake.

True enough that the instructions are different for g4 and g5 and it would cause problems w/software. Point was that since the dual-core g4 is a significant improvement over the old g4, they would be justified in giving it a distinct name. So if not "g5 mobility" how about calling the dual-core "powerino" or "poweron."

 

[eric67]

dual core impossible...

If Apple had Pb with dualcore processor ready, then such machine should be announced during a big event, or even featuring by itself a special event.
but so far it is not the case, so do not expect dual core for tomorrow update.
Now, for WWDC announcement, with availability for september 2005... then dual core could really be true, while I am still thinking of a G5

another point to take into account:
I remain quite confident that Tiger introduction will come along with a new hardware release, in other words, Tiger is an required update for a new hardware to come. So WWDC will be Tiger launch with hardware launch...
WWDC will be very hot

 

[ebally]

Will it make a big difference?

I've asked this before on previous threads, but never seemed to have my query answered.

Will having a duel-core processor make a big difference to current games and such, or will it only effect future games / applications that are multi-core aware?

 

[iRobot]

You need to get something straight: "G5" is Apple's brand, and no one else's. Freescale doesn't make a "G4." They make a 32-bit PowerPC chip that they call the MPC7447A. Apple buys it and rebrands it as the "G4 processor." By that same token, IBM doesn't make a "G5." They make the PPC970FX, which Apple buys can rebrands as the "G5 processor."

My point is simple. Apple is not going to release a 32-bit dual-core chip from Freescale and call it a "G5," because they've spent too much time, effort, and money on marketing that presents the G5 brand in terms of 64-bit capability.



What the hell are you babbling about? I'm not saying Apple would limit their chip choices. I'm saying that Apple isn't going to call it a G5 unless it's 64-bit. You were suggesting that they take a dual-core G4 and call it a G5, and that's not going to happen.



Have you not been paying attention? Most of us have already said a dual-core G4 would be as good or even preferable to a G5. The problem is that such a chip DOES NOT EXIST, and won't for at least six months!

Firstly, I used the term G4 because you insisted on using it when referring to Freescale's chips, since you're determined that Apple couldn't possibly rebrand them.

My point from the first was that because the G# naming scheme was Apple's, they could do whatever they want with it.

Furthermore, the G5 branding being dependent on 64bit processors doesn't mean they have to be IBM 64bit processors. As I said, Freescale can just as easily develop 64bit processors, and has plans to do so with the 8641D.

You're also contradicting yourself. You say that what your really concerned with is just that a G4 couldn't be branded G5 and then you say that you object to the fact that I'm talking about a chip that isn't available yet.

My point is just, and has always been, that a "G5" doesn't have to be made by IBM.

I personally, and at this point it is just my opinion, don't think that the processor would need to be 64bit to be called a "G5" processor by Apple. Most of their consumers wouldn't know the difference, and the ones who did would also know enough to be pleased with the Dual Core G4. So I don't think that it would be such an impossible/stupid move on Apple's part to call such a processor a G5. Again, this is just my opinion and reasoning.


Last point, unrelated to the powerbook argument:

You lose a great deal of credibility in your arguments when you rely on impugning the intelligence of your opponent. Give at a rest. Just stick with your points.

 

[eric67]

yes and no

I've asked this before on previous threads, but never seemed to have my query answered.

Will having a duel-core processor make a big difference to current games and such, or will it only effect future games / applications that are multi-core aware?

regarding game, it will really have an impact when games will be dualcore/dualprocessor aware.

but I doubt one have a notebook computer only to play games, and regarding other applciations, dualcore will immediately boost performance.

dual core looks to me a bit too early, since even the 7448 G4 has not made it yet into PB while it would boost performance by 10 to 20% due to higher clock speed and 200MHz bus

 

[iRobot]

regarding game, it will really have an impact when games will be dualcore/dualprocessor aware.

but I doubt one have a notebook computer only to play games, and regarding other applciations, dualcore will immediately boost performance.

dual core looks to me a bit too early, since even the 7448 G4 has not made it yet into PB while it would boost performance by 10 to 20% due to higher clock speed and 200MHz bus

10-20% is a little bit generous, I would say, but in combination with a better graphics card and faster hard drive, it may very well come out that high.

Who knows? With an X700, base 512 Mb of RAM, and a 7200 RPM hard drive, there could be as much as a 25% performance increase over the current base models. (Depending on the clock speed of the elusive 7448) Very, very wishful thinking.

That would certainly make a soon-to-switch-back-er like me happy.

 

[eric67]

elusive 7448

10-20% is a little bit generous, I would say, but in combination with a better graphics card and faster hard drive, it may very well come out that high.

Who knows? With an X700, base 512 Mb of RAM, and a 7200 RPM hard drive, there could be as much as a 25% performance increase over the current base models. (Depending on the clock speed of the elusive 7448) Very, very wishful thinking.

That would certainly make a soon-to-switch-back-er like me happy.

regarding 7448, one can be sure that it will be produced, but one can not expect to see it coming with a clock-speed around 1.8GHz for the low end!
regarding HD, the best today, it the hitach 5400 with 16Mo cache, trust me it rocks, and bit 7200rpm HD fand down, and in addition it generates less heat and save battery lifespan

 

[Lacero]

Dual core in laptops only makes sense if one core is able to power down in the event of being powered by batteries. Otherwise the laptop would get half battery life, or larger enclosure to house a larger battery.

 

[jadam]

G5 is an architecture. Unless motorola matches ALL specs of the G5 architecture, Apple would never call it a G5. Why?

Ok, get it straight, G5 is a marketing name, NOT AN ARCHITECTURE. Its quite simple really, the marketing derpartment gets a new chipset and they call it G-Whatever.

 

[jadam]

Dual core in laptops only makes sense if one core is able to power down in the event of being powered by batteries. Otherwise the laptop would get half battery life, or larger enclosure to house a larger battery.

... The Dual Core chipsets have around the same power consumption as the processor currently being used in the powerbook G4. Actually, the total powerconsumption for the system would be much less then current powerbooks. Now explain to me why they should disable the second core? to get 7 hours of battery life?

 

[ddtlm]

I want Apple to have G5+64 and G5-64 lines. That would rock. Like DVD recorders rock. Just like that.

yamabushi:

Even a minor improvement in bus speed would go a long ways towards reducing the data "log jams" that occur frequently with current G4 chipsets.

I'd bet the 1M L2 would do more, but yeah they'd both be nice.

dguisinger:

Intel has been stuck within 100MHz for like the past year.

Heh, I love playing the devil's advocate. The G5 has gone from 2.0ghz to 2.5ghz during its span on the market, which is 25%. The P4 has gone from 3.0ghz to 3.8ghz during that time, which is 27%. So the P4 has scaled faster, and doesn't need water cooling.

Sorry, had to do it.