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.
PowerPC RoadMap from Motorola
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
rdowns said:The original poster said G5s in the Pro line and G4s in the Consumers line. He didn't say a G4 in PB, he referred to a 2GHz G4 iBook.
Ergo, PM/PB=Pro and eM/iM/iB=consumer.
Does any of this really matter?
If you're going to accuse someone of not reading the post they're responding to: yes.
If G4 = consumer and PB = G4 then PB = consumer.
Well, since these new Moto chips have a better chance of getting into the iBook before the G5 does im all for it. Bring it on Moto!
The best of all worlds for Apple would be...
to have significant numbers of chips from both IBM and Motorola in their various product lines. If those two suppliers could compete fairly (no blackmail, extortion, bribes or kickbacks (you hearing this, MicroShaft?)), all parties concerned could be big winners.
I'm convinced that AMD was the best thing that ever happened to Intel. After it was clear that Moto wasn't able to keep with them, Intel could have easily relaxed into Monopolist mode (notice how much Internet Explorer has improved ever since it "killed" Netscape?) But AMD showed up and lit a fire under Intel's butt and has driven steady progress.
If going with IBM's G5 is what it took to get Moto to move out its keester, then it was a great move. And if Moto's new offering makes IBM try even harder to get the 3GHz G5 chips out even faster, well, that's really great! That's how competition is supposed to work! That's when it drives people to do their best.
Having said all that, let's see if Moto can follow their own road map -- history has shown that they're not really good at that, but I wonder if anything will be any different with IBM eating their lunch.
to have significant numbers of chips from both IBM and Motorola in their various product lines. If those two suppliers could compete fairly (no blackmail, extortion, bribes or kickbacks (you hearing this, MicroShaft?)), all parties concerned could be big winners.
I'm convinced that AMD was the best thing that ever happened to Intel. After it was clear that Moto wasn't able to keep with them, Intel could have easily relaxed into Monopolist mode (notice how much Internet Explorer has improved ever since it "killed" Netscape?) But AMD showed up and lit a fire under Intel's butt and has driven steady progress.
If going with IBM's G5 is what it took to get Moto to move out its keester, then it was a great move. And if Moto's new offering makes IBM try even harder to get the 3GHz G5 chips out even faster, well, that's really great! That's how competition is supposed to work! That's when it drives people to do their best.
Having said all that, let's see if Moto can follow their own road map -- history has shown that they're not really good at that, but I wonder if anything will be any different with IBM eating their lunch.
is it just me or is everyone buying into the 64-bit myth? granted the G5 dual 2.0ghz runs circles around a Dual 1.25G4 however would it still run circles around a dual 3.0ghz G4? probbably not because if you look at the chart comparing the 1.6ghz G5 to the dual 1.25Ghz G4 you see the 1.6ghz G5 barly beats it now than you get a Dual 2.5ghz G4 and right there you have a processor just a hair shorter than the Dual 2.0 G5 and for about $1,000 less and than there is that new super processor that kicked the pipelines out of the 2.0ghz celeron and the processor was only at 300mhz! (more proof of the megahertz myth or now the Gigahertz myth) and was incredibly cheap you get that things speed upto 1ghz and it will burn a dual 3.0ghz G5 and possibly a quad G5 you make it a 64 bit core too and it will be 20 times faster than todays top of the line computer.
I want to see IBM and mortorlla and Intel and AMD work together on the single fastest processor ever just put aside thier differences and aligences and make the first Terrahertz processor for unix. (and since OS X is basically unix with a GUI...)
I have a feeling the next Moto speed bump will be 1.8GHz or 2.0GHz for the iBooks, iMacs, and maybe PowerBooks if they haven't squeezed in a G5 yet.
Next upgrade??
PM: 2.5-3.0Ghz?(G5)
PB: 1.8-2.0Ghz?(G5 or G4)
iBook: 1.8-2.0Ghz?(G4)
iMac: 1.5-2.0Ghz?(G4)
eMac: 1.33?(G4)
Next upgrade??
PM: 2.5-3.0Ghz?(G5)
PB: 1.8-2.0Ghz?(G5 or G4)
iBook: 1.8-2.0Ghz?(G4)
iMac: 1.5-2.0Ghz?(G4)
eMac: 1.33?(G4)
LaMerVipere said:
Apple doesn't really have enough market share for that much product diversity. The more similar the portables are (note they all have the same keyboard, for example) the cheaper they are to make. Also, the advantage of the iBooks and Powerbooks over PC laptops is that they combine most of the best qualities of the categories you list above. They are smaller and lighter than most PC laptops, yet more powerful than sub-notebooks (and have optical drives).
Desktop replacements are, for the most part, just cheaply made, incredibly heavy laptops. Someone in one of my classes brought in a desktop replacement Dell one day. When he opened it up, I thought I heard the sound of a croud roaring at a baseball game. It took me a few seconds to realize that it was the computer's incredibly load fan. 9lbs, and as loud as an aircraft carrier. No thanks. The other end of desktop replacements, the incredibly powerful laptops for gamers, is really a niche market. In my book, the 14" iBook is enough of a cheap desktop replacement and the 17" Powerbook is enough of a high-end desktop replacement.
As for subnotebooks, the 12" Powerbook is really quite small. They could make a model without the optical drive and save a pound and a little thickness, but I don't think they'd sell enough to make it worthwhile.
On the other hand, I would love to see more options for customers. Like a 1.5Ghz G4 in the 12" powerbook as a custom option.
If the G4s fsb ran at the speeds of the G5, then watch out. If a G5 and G4 ran at the same speed say 2ghz with the same fsb then the G4 looks very attractive.
I see no reason not to use G4s in portables if things keep progressing.
Should be interesting to see how it plays out.
I see no reason not to use G4s in portables if things keep progressing.
Should be interesting to see how it plays out.
My post of G4 consumer and G5 pro was based on the fact that power books will move to the G5 as soon as they can. I would expect to see faster G4's in the iBook and eMac line if they become available instead of them switching over to the G5. The iMac would be an exception, I would expect that to be a G5 some time soon.
Continuing development of the G4 can only be a good thing. But I agree this is nothing more than talk, I will believe it when it happens.
Continuing development of the G4 can only be a good thing. But I agree this is nothing more than talk, I will believe it when it happens.
areyouwishing said:
According to speed tests by Barefeat.com the 1.6 mhz G5 blows the doors off the new 1.5 ghz powerbooks. The powerbooks use fast ram, fast hard drives and fast video cards. So, what's the difference. Bus speed primarily. The G5 has an 800 mhz frontside bus while the G4 has a 167 mhz bus. Moto just doesn't get it.
Another consideration is that the new 970 FX G5's put out about half the heat those new G4's will produce. The new G5 pulls 12 watts while the G4's in the latest powerbooks draw twice that. Has anybody used one of the new powerbooks on battery? I have and got just a little over 2 hours on it. I can get almost 5 on my old TI 500 (it has the new battery design in it) that draws only 7.5 watts.
Frisco said:
Fat chance. Motorola's charged more for the G4 than IBM did for the G5, and I find it unlikely that they're going to change their policy when they're still strong in the defense embedded industry, where you can charge $10,000 for a hammer.
This is the key problem with this "roadmap." Motorola promises the world, and then deliver DeMoines, Iowa.
What lack of reliability is this that you're talking about? Many people say this, but I don't recall any promises about chips that would have been broken yet. All that Jobs said was that Apple and IBM would hit 3.0ghz in a year.
No, we need companies making good chips. I'll take one good chip over eight bad ones any day.
Mr. MacPhisto said:
I'd rather have a 750vx running at 2.0ghz and up, since it's being produced by a company with a real stake in the computer market. Motorola is an embedded company that's been selling to Apple for a while now. I don't believe for a moment they're going to make a dual-core processor that would be at all cost-effectice for Apple.
I just don't trust Motorola anymore, especially not after some of the stunts they pulled with the 74xx core over the years. FreeScale's chips plans sound nice, and I'd prefer even those to a single G5 in the PowerBooks. They're just not a good bet until they're on a loading dock and being brought in to slot into machines.
--
Oh, and while I mostly agree with Miloblithe, he also left out a key aspect of not going hog-wild on product lines... Apple's done it before, right around the time the company was starting to spiral out of control. Jobs put a stop to that.
hm
Well I do not care who makes the CPU. As long as it is fast, and good. But in the long run IBM has a LOT more $$$ than moto so IBM is in the long run a better CPU maker.
Read more: http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33566.html
Well I do not care who makes the CPU. As long as it is fast, and good. But in the long run IBM has a LOT more $$$ than moto so IBM is in the long run a better CPU maker.
Read more: http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33566.html
I'll believe it when I see it. The G4 had a ton of potential, but quite frankly, Motorola sucks. The G4 should be at 2+ghz right now, but Moto has their head too far up their ass to get it out the door. The G5 bit is nothing. We will see 3ghz by the end of summer. The reason Apple went to the PPC in the first place was because Motorola couldn't get the 040's out and ramped up fast enough. This new chip wont clock at 2ghz. It'll clock initially at about 1.5, and it'll take Motorola 2 years to get it up to 2ghz. History has shown us that much. Screw Motorola.
I agree..............and still feel sorry for those new G4 buyers who are MacgamersDurendal said:
Durendal has spoken the truth. Screw Moto and its Last Place G4.
Dont Hurt Me said:I agree..............and still feel sorry for those new G4 buyers who are Macgamers
You know, for once, I'm just not going to argue with DHM. Motorola has had plenty of opportunity to scale the G4 by now, and yet they're hanging around at 1.5ghz at the current design. Somehow, I just don't see a 2.0ghz enhanced G4 any time in the near future, and when it comes to the desktop... Well, the G5 is a better system in all respects.
I think a lot will depend on how free Freescale is from Moto. If Moto keeps screwing things up then IBM has a wide open field. If Freescale can do their own thing (be totally free of Moto) then there is a chance to do some good.
I think that their main challenge, however, will be to try to catch up with IBM's Power 5 chip - which might hit the Mac this summer - and the neat things that will come after that, and come rather fast. It's very difficult to go against a company now producing chips at 90 nm and with the facilities to migrate to 65 nm and then 45 nm.
I think that their main challenge, however, will be to try to catch up with IBM's Power 5 chip - which might hit the Mac this summer - and the neat things that will come after that, and come rather fast. It's very difficult to go against a company now producing chips at 90 nm and with the facilities to migrate to 65 nm and then 45 nm.
areyouwishing said:
You should note that even on the 'short' bus the new PB's benchmark withing a hair of the 1.6 G5's. Bus bandwidth isn't the choke point 90% of the time. I want a faster bus too but the G5 architecture is not any faster than G4 at equivalent speeds with todays applications. The G4 PB's the first time we've seen a G4 close to G5 speeds and the gap dissapeared.
I'd live the G5 mobile to be a G4 with improvements. As long as the power requirements stay level or drop and the performance improves I don't care about the age of the architecture. Look at PC's - tons of legacy and as fast as the best new designs through sheer ingenuity.
I wouldn't mind a 2Ghz G4 in powerbooks at all. I've seen benchmarks that show that the G5's arene't much faster than the G4's Mhz for Mhz. The G5's are just clocked much higher. As I'm quite doubtful that Apple would be in a position to introduce anything higher than a 2 Ghz G5 in the Powerbooks by the beginning of next year, I really don't see that as a big jump. Motorolla will have the G4's up to at least 1.8 Ghz (if not 2 Ghz) by the same time. So if they came up with a G5 powerbook, you would basically end up with a Powerbook that runs hot, consumes a lot of power, and isn't any faster than its G4 counterpart. If you look at the barefeats comparison below, you will see that the 1.6 G5 is only very marginally faster than a 1.5 G4 powerbook at rendering FCP. This is only one of the benchmarks I have seen illustrating this same point. I think people going on about the G5 Powerbook are just getting cought up in the hype and not necessarily in touch with reality.
Attachments
thatwendigo said:
Problem is that the people I know at IBM have said the VX project was dumped by Apple in January - due to IBM not being able to ramp up 90nm and the new offerings Motorola would have before the VX would see production (pushed back to late summer with the delays). The VX project is dead. IBM and Apple are working on a SOC project, but that may also be cancelled before the year is out.
Frisco said:
Unless Motorolla makes the g4 line 64bit compatible they won't keep using both processors for long. The sooner will all go 64 bit the sooner we can get a 64bit OS and 64 bit software. Or else the using 64 bit G5s will have been useless.
Staying with 32 bit G4s will just make the transition longer and harder.
Just a comment, every bench i have seen shows a single 1.6 G5 kicks G4 butt and most of the time is neck and neck with a dual on SMP aware apps. Lets not start thinking a G4 is the same clock for clock as a G5 because it just is not so. that benchmark is one of the closest. G5 is still running G4 software, when G5 stuff comes up there will be no comparison. a 1.5 G4 does not make for a 1.6 G5. just had to say that for those who think these 2 animals are about the same performance wise. one more thing and that is it took moto over 1 year to go from 1.42 to 1.5. I dont plan on seeing any G4 speed bumps anytime soon. G4 does not compete with Intel/AMD. Apple needs a Cpu that can compete and win. G5 will be that chip. Im waiting for a G5 iMac.
shyataroo said:
I realize you're joking but the only problem there is that of architectures. Depending on which way they went they could either develop for x86 or PPC. Well, since all of those companies produce x86 chips for PCs AFAIK, they'd probably develop for x86 and we'd be screwed. OS X is basically a Unix (FreeBSD) with a special display manager (Quartz) that was written to support the PPC architecture...