Motorola will roll out the new G4 in early 2003. At 867-1833 MHz. New Macs anyone?
Read more at http://macnews.net.tc
Read more at http://macnews.net.tc
Motorola PowerPC 7457
- Thread starter fryke
- Start date
Forget about the 'G5' moniker. Motorola is using it for the embedded processors of the 85xx series. Like Apple said, the G4 still has some life in it. And the 7457 looks like a good G4 to me, until Apple needs something new.
I'd rather have a faster G4 that is totally compatible with all my software than needing another 'transition' (read: upgrades to all the applications I'm using) until I can work comfortably again.
I'd rather have a faster G4 that is totally compatible with all my software than needing another 'transition' (read: upgrades to all the applications I'm using) until I can work comfortably again.
Rhino_G3
Registered
I've heard.... a LONG time ago that apple has had plans to release a "G5" regardless of what processor is in it. I believe this was when a major advancement in the G4 came around. If you'll remember back a few years the G4 was originaly going to be called the G3+ but, due to slumping sales, the marketing dept. ended up convincing everybody it should be called the G4.
kendall
Registered
The G4 is just a G3 with AltiVec so I guess essentially it is just a G3+. The original G4s actually performed poorly against the G3. Basically this was because the lack of AltiVec optimized apps. People still paid a premium for them though because the Koolaid tasted so good.
As for 1833 MHz G4s, I'll believe it when I see it. Just because they can make 1 run at 1833 MHz doesn't mean they can make 20,000. That's basically the problem with all the G4 processor, low yield. Always has been, always will be and we'll always be paying a premium to own one, despite how well it performs.
Motorola is trying to squeeze more juice out of a processor that was never intended to go past 1 GHz. I don't have any faith whatsoever in the G4 or its potential speeds anymore.
The 1.25 GHz PowerMacs benchmark below the previous 1 GHz models in some tests. What's the deal? For $800 you basically get nothing. DDR memory you say? Big whoop. A controller on the motherboard blocks the CPU from taking advantage of it. Why you ask? Because the G4 doesn't work with DDR memory.
I don't know about everyone else but I don't really want to buy a new Mac until Apple gets its act together, both performance and pricewise. OS X is simply amazing but Mac hardware in general just turns me off as it continues to fall behind.
As for 1833 MHz G4s, I'll believe it when I see it. Just because they can make 1 run at 1833 MHz doesn't mean they can make 20,000. That's basically the problem with all the G4 processor, low yield. Always has been, always will be and we'll always be paying a premium to own one, despite how well it performs.
Motorola is trying to squeeze more juice out of a processor that was never intended to go past 1 GHz. I don't have any faith whatsoever in the G4 or its potential speeds anymore.
The 1.25 GHz PowerMacs benchmark below the previous 1 GHz models in some tests. What's the deal? For $800 you basically get nothing. DDR memory you say? Big whoop. A controller on the motherboard blocks the CPU from taking advantage of it. Why you ask? Because the G4 doesn't work with DDR memory.
I don't know about everyone else but I don't really want to buy a new Mac until Apple gets its act together, both performance and pricewise. OS X is simply amazing but Mac hardware in general just turns me off as it continues to fall behind.
chemistry_geek
Registered
All your processor are belong to IBM.
The future looks bright with an IBM PowerPC 970. And it's meant to run in multiple processor configurations.
The future looks bright with an IBM PowerPC 970. And it's meant to run in multiple processor configurations.
chemistry_geek
Registered
Domo-ary gato Mr. Roboto, Domo, Domo,... my brain IBM. - Styx, Mr. Roboto.
Woohoo baby! IBM all the way! See? This was prophesized by the 1980's rock band Styx. I'm tellin' ya, Big Blue is the way to go for an ensured FAST future.
Woohoo baby! IBM all the way! See? This was prophesized by the 1980's rock band Styx. I'm tellin' ya, Big Blue is the way to go for an ensured FAST future.
Excalibur
Registered
Perfect post. I agree totally. I'm happy with the Mac I got. Once they get a machine out with some compeditive performance to the market, I'll be in the hunt for an upgraded Mac. The updates the last 2-3 years have been bad. An average of 250MHz a year can be fatal. They JUST now learned to upgrade the architecture now we find out the CPU bottlenecks the architecture. One problem after another, yet the price stays the same. NOT good. Ditch Motorola so we can move forward once again. The best times of the Mac were during the 604e and first generation G3 ages. Since then.... slump. I don't see a positive future with Motorola in the picture, unless Apple plans to build cell phones and internet devices only.
IBM to the floor now, please.
Well, IBM right NOW offers G3's at around 1 GHz - and I rather have a 1.25 GHz G4 at the top of the line PowerMacintosh. Or two, even (which isn't possible with the G3 officially).
I also don't think that IBM's PPC 970 will be a very good processor for notebooks - unless you're running it below 1.2 GHz, and from Motorola's timeline we can see that they're offering G4s for low-power settings at up to 1.8 GHz very, very soon (instead of 'end of 2003').
So Apple is perfectly right to keep both partners alive. Why not use the PPC 970 (when it arrives) in high end configs and - until then and beyond - use G4s in the other computers?
If you look at the comparisons of PPC 970, Power4, Itanium/2 and Pentium 4 processors, you'll also notice that the 970 will be behind on release (because it's behind even now). So no, I don't think IBM has a bright future as Apple's primary processor supplier.
I also don't think that IBM's PPC 970 will be a very good processor for notebooks - unless you're running it below 1.2 GHz, and from Motorola's timeline we can see that they're offering G4s for low-power settings at up to 1.8 GHz very, very soon (instead of 'end of 2003').
So Apple is perfectly right to keep both partners alive. Why not use the PPC 970 (when it arrives) in high end configs and - until then and beyond - use G4s in the other computers?
If you look at the comparisons of PPC 970, Power4, Itanium/2 and Pentium 4 processors, you'll also notice that the 970 will be behind on release (because it's behind even now). So no, I don't think IBM has a bright future as Apple's primary processor supplier.
Excalibur
Registered
The IBM 970 has much higher bandwidth than the 'rumored' G5. PLus much better SMP management as well. Also this performance numbers are specualation as Apple must design a custom bridge chip to use it so performance can be higher, or lower, we don't know. But we all know Motorola's 'realibilty' when it comes to building a scalable chip.... no thanks. I wouldn't bet my future on that. Their focus is NOT CPUs for Apple as they have shown over the last 3 years. I trust IBM far more than Motorola for scalability and focus for the future of the CPU. Sure the 'rumored' G5 may ship sooner, but if its stuck in limbo for 3 years and not scalable like the G4 seems to be... deja vu all over and that might be the end. NOT a good future in the long run unless Apple plans to make an iPhone to replace the Macintosh. LOL ;-)
kendall
Registered
I don't understand why everyone is finding a savior in the IBM 970. This is a highend server processor which is going to come with a heafty price tag. The Power4 it's derived from goes into $100,000 servers.
You're not going to find it in your PowerBook or iMac. I doubt it would even be practicle in a PowerMac. Maybe Xserve or XRaid?
Compared against the P4 2.8 MHz, it's already outperformed and it's not even due to materialze for another year.
As for the G4. It's a dinosaur as well. System bus speeds are pathetic and it doesn't even work correctly with DDR memory.
Sure, 1.8 GHz would be great but by the time we'll see it there will be 4 GHz P4s and Athlons.
Why does that matter? Well, if Apple is content with 3.2% market share then it really doesn't. But considering they've waged war against the PC which is apparent in their new marketing strategy, they're going to need to put a little muscle behind their future offerings. Also, they're going to need to offer a processor that doesn't cost 4x more than the competition.
This is one of the reasons I like the G3 and would rather have a 1 GHz G3 at a fraction of the cost with comparable performance rather than a 1.25 GHz G4 that cost 4x more.
The G3 would also experience more consistant speed increases than the G4. Theoretically the G3 would be closer to 1.5-1.8 GHz if Apple hadn't practically dropped all support for it.
A 250 MHz increase every year from the G4 is not going to cut it. Apple needs a processor that can grow along with the competition.
I don't know what the answer is but it's not the IBM 970 nor the G4.
You're not going to find it in your PowerBook or iMac. I doubt it would even be practicle in a PowerMac. Maybe Xserve or XRaid?
Compared against the P4 2.8 MHz, it's already outperformed and it's not even due to materialze for another year.
As for the G4. It's a dinosaur as well. System bus speeds are pathetic and it doesn't even work correctly with DDR memory.
Sure, 1.8 GHz would be great but by the time we'll see it there will be 4 GHz P4s and Athlons.
Why does that matter? Well, if Apple is content with 3.2% market share then it really doesn't. But considering they've waged war against the PC which is apparent in their new marketing strategy, they're going to need to put a little muscle behind their future offerings. Also, they're going to need to offer a processor that doesn't cost 4x more than the competition.
This is one of the reasons I like the G3 and would rather have a 1 GHz G3 at a fraction of the cost with comparable performance rather than a 1.25 GHz G4 that cost 4x more.
The G3 would also experience more consistant speed increases than the G4. Theoretically the G3 would be closer to 1.5-1.8 GHz if Apple hadn't practically dropped all support for it.
A 250 MHz increase every year from the G4 is not going to cut it. Apple needs a processor that can grow along with the competition.
I don't know what the answer is but it's not the IBM 970 nor the G4.
Excalibur
Registered
I don't know why you don't get it. The IBM 970 is being designed for workstations not servers. So let the price thing go. Different market, different price. NEXT...
The reason Apple didn't go with G3's at 1GHZ was at teh time then G4 was at around 600MHz. I'd love to see how good chance trying to market that one. Motorola pretty much muffed that one up as well, so I don't push the blame totally at Apple for that one. We'd have a confused line of systems switching from G3 to G4 throughout the process to keep the clock rate climbing. Remember when Apple had too many lines before? They were on their death bed.
The reason I think IBM would be a better choice is as I said before. They have better R&D and interest in their CPU than Motorola so the scalabiity factor looks a hell of a lot better than Motorola could ever offer. We won't know for sure but based on current issues and history I stand by that theory.
The reason Apple didn't go with G3's at 1GHZ was at teh time then G4 was at around 600MHz. I'd love to see how good chance trying to market that one. Motorola pretty much muffed that one up as well, so I don't push the blame totally at Apple for that one. We'd have a confused line of systems switching from G3 to G4 throughout the process to keep the clock rate climbing. Remember when Apple had too many lines before? They were on their death bed.
The reason I think IBM would be a better choice is as I said before. They have better R&D and interest in their CPU than Motorola so the scalabiity factor looks a hell of a lot better than Motorola could ever offer. We won't know for sure but based on current issues and history I stand by that theory.
kendall
Registered
Even if its a $7000+ Xserve? Also, considering its a 64 bit processor, if Apple does adopt it, they will release a 64 bit version of OS X server. Will this 64 bit version of OS X server run 32 bit PPC apps?
It supposedly backwards compatible with 32 bit PPC apps but chances are 32 bit apps running under the IBM 970 wouldn't perform any better than under a G4.
If all you wanted to use a IBM 970 Xserve for is a desktop computer, it certainly wouldn't be worth it.