PPC G5 On The Way -- And Fast

Sulka writes: "The Register has a report claiming the PPC G5 CPU is ready for production and will be launched by Apple in January. Initial batch would include a 1.6GHz version with 2GHz to follow. 64 bit architecture, 10 stage pipeline, Silicon-On-Insulator and other buzzwords are mentioned." Maybe this will mean cheaper G4s for those of us who buy computers somewhat lower on the food chain, too.

Comments

OS X

[ekrout]

Hmmm, maybe these new b0xen will actually be able to run OS X and all its interface dandies without feeling like you're on a an old 386. The windows transparency, although sexy, is really rough on the machines; I have yet to see an Apple machine that can run OS X smoothly.

Re:OS X

[jeffy124]

OS X 10.1 will be released sometime this month. I've seen beta versions, and it's kickin'. Look for that smoothness you're so desparately in need of. Look for a faster GUI, faster application boot time, more organized dock (some things have been moved), and other improvements.

Re:OS X

[barryblack]

The problem is that mac os x uses display technology that is not easily accelerated by current graphics cards. A lot of screen drawing is done with vectors and bezier curves that are closer to the type of acceleration that a 3d card provides and not a 2d card. However, until recently, 3d cards weren't easily made to run custom routines. You had to rely on a set of standard calls. The geforce 3 changed this. I'm sure once those drivers mature, os x will really shine. On a side note, I run os x every day on a powerbook G4. While I wouldn't call the us fast, it is very usalbe. 10.1 will only improve on this.

puts Apple in a bind?

[imac.usr]

Hmmmm. This might actually represent a problem for Apple. Consider:
1. Their fastest processor is an 867 MHz G4.
2. Their fastest machine is a dual-800 MHz G4.
3. When the G5 is available, the slowest speed going to the desktop market according to the article is 1.2 GHz.
4. The rumor (unlikely as it sounds) is that there'll be an announcement at MacWorld Expo San Francisco of a G5-powered Mac.

Now, if you knew a machine that was 50% faster in clockspeed than the current model was just a month or two away, wouldn't you want to wait? I would. And that's pretty much the last thing Apple really needs at the mement.

Perhaps they should start with the slower speed models? Even an 800 MHz G5 should be faster than the current G4s, if coupled with a better-performing chipset/bus.

Re:puts Apple in a bind?

[vidarh]

What you're referring to even has a name: The Osborne effect. After the computer maker Osborne that went bankrupt in the early 80's because people stopped buying their tremendously successful "portable" Osborne 1 machine because the Osborne 2 was supposed to be so incredibly much better... The Osborne 2 never got to market.

There is even find a paper about the problem on the web.

I think you'll find that Steve Jobs knows how to market things to avoid that problem...

Re:puts Apple in a bind?

[TotallyUseless]

1. plenty of apps are using Cocoa (updated Next API). Im using one right now, Omniweb. There are plenty more.
2. If you believe developers, many of them doing carbon ports now are thinking cocoa for future releases further down the road.
3. "it had an excellent API that would have actually seen full support by developers"... just like BeOS saw 'full' support from developers? How many major BeOS apps are there? BeOS Photoshop? BeOS Office? BeOS Quicken? I havent heard of any of these.
4. regardless of how you feel about the iMac and cube, Jobs saved Apple. No two ways about it. If they had chosen BeOS, more than likely Apple wouldn't have made it. You may see that as an argument in your favor, but thats just trolltalk

Re:What about the G4s 128 bits?

[pressman]

The G4 is a 32-bit chip with a 128-bit vector co-processing unit.

The really cool thing about the G5 is that it will be a 64-bit chip with complete backwards compatibility with 32-bit applications.

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!!

[jeffy124]

it's been discussed MANY times on /. that there's more to a chip than MHz or GHz. Intel's fastest chip may indeed run at 2GHz, but it also has (IIRC) a 20 stage pipeline. Meanwhile, the G4 chips have a 7-stage pipeline. The new G5 has a 10 stage but is also 64 bit, so I dont know how it will compare to the current G4s in performance. I think it will probably be similar at the start, but G5 will eventually pull away and smoke the G4 over time.

I think Apple has already determined that they arent gonna use clock speed in advertising. They're simply using the numbers G3, G4, and now G5. That's pretty much similar to AMD's new campaign of AMD 7000 chips or something like that.

Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers

[stripes]

Apple's machines require much less cooling hardware, plus the PowerPC chips have fewer transistors and should be easier to produce in quantity. Most likely this is where Apple is making most of its money.

There are a lot of per product costs (aka non recurring expenses, or NREs). It costs roughly as much to develop a new version of MacOS as Windows. It costs roughly as much to design a new PowerPC as it does a new P-IIII or K7. Apple has about 5% of the market.

If you pretend it costs $100,000 to design a new OS and CPU, and that there are 100 people that buy computers, you can see that the 95 people who buy a Wintel box will have to pay about $1000 each for their share of the NRE. The 5 people that buy Apples have to pay about $20,000 each.

In the real world it isn't quite that bad since there are more uses for the PowerPC then just Apple's products. There are also more NREs that are similar in scale for PC makers. For example the video card in a Mac is pretty much just a PC video card. Apple ships about as many PCs as a big PC maker, so their cost to design a case and motherboard is about the same.

Still if Apple had 50% of the market rather then 5% they could manage to sell the machines for much closer to Wintel prices (maybe even under it).

I'm sure there are some other reasons, but I have a feeling that this is the biggest one...

affordability

[Ender Ryan]

I would love to get my hands on a PPC based box, I'd love to have MacOSX, Linux and MacOS9, but, it's too expensive.

On the PC side, I've had the same machine for over 3 years, and I just keep upgrading 1 or 2 parts at a time. It used to be a 300 celery, now it's a AMD T-bird 900 w/Geforce2. The initial cost was about $1,200-, well under $2,000. Upgrades have run about $1,000, and from the leftover parts I put together another computer that I have connected to my T.V.

With PPC, however, the initial cost would be $1,800+, and I know nothing about upgrades for PPC hardware. Would I be able to continually upgrade parts cheaply with a PPC based machine.

I am interested because I would like to start developing for Linux/MacOSX/Win within the next couple years, with the main focus on Linux/MacOSX, and only on Win if it is profitable for me.

Anyone care to explain how the PPC world works? ; )

Re:affordability

[dhamsaic]

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm a Linux guy, but I really wanted to play with MacOS X without dropping $2000. So... I bought one of the new iBooks.

I got the basic CD-ROM model - $1300 at the Apple Store in Tyson's Corner, VA. I ordered a 256MB SODIMM from Crucial. That was $150 at the time, but they're down to $49 now (Yeah, I feel like an idiot, but 64MB doesn't cut it these days). So for $1350 + shipping on the notebook, you could have a 500MHz G3 with 320 megs of RAM, 10 gig hard drive (small-ish, but definitely enough to play around on) and built in network, etc. It should come with MacOS X installed. Mine didn't, so I bugged the Apple Store until they gave me a copy. I installed it in a car ride up to Maryland - the install got done in the hour it took me to get up there (I forget exactly how long it took, I wasn't paying great attention).

MacOS X is *awesome*. I use that little laptop as much as I can. It's small, light, seems pretty tough (although I ripped off one of the feet on the bottom when it got caught on the edge of the desk and I pulled - I could have put it back in but I didn't realize it until later, after I had picked up the piece, thought "what the hell's this?" and then thrown it away). I love it. Funny thing is, I used to hate macs. *Hated* them. Now I'm about to get a Dual 800MHz G4 with a GeForce3 for graphics/audio.

I'd say that it's really worth it to drop the money on the iBook if you can afford it. If not, get the low end iMac - $300 cheaper, bigger hard drive, more stuff... It's not as portable, obviously, but it's still a Mac that you can play with. And it's running on a 100MHz bus instead of 66, like the iBook (my only complaint...)

Re:WOOHOO!!!

[Noer]

Nobody calls it the apple tax because Apple isn't charging licensing fees to another company that they pass off to you. Apple's per-unit cost for bundling Mac OS with a computer is zero, because they develop the OS and the hardware.

It'd be like trying to get a Palm without PalmOS.

Or it'd be like complaining that a Microsoft-brand PC came with Windows, if Microsoft sold its own brand of PCs.

You couldn't save any money by not having Mac OS bundled, because Apple doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to anybody for including Mac OS; thus no cost is being passed on to you.

On the other hand, Apple also doesn't make you type in annoying 25-character license keys to use the OS that came with your computer.

Food?

[Futurepower(tm)]

"Maybe this will mean cheaper G4s for those of us who buy computers somewhat lower on the food chain, too."

You know you are heavily involved with computers when you call them "food".


What Should be the Response to Violence?

Re:Mmmm...

[well_jung]

I'm busy figuring out how to sell my wife so I can afford one...

I feel a Bill Gates quote coming on here :D

[Talez]

OK... I'm sorry... but I couldn't resist :D

640 megs should be enough for anyone!

Talez :)

Re:WOOHOO!!!

[Planesdragon]

One of two places:

1) Buy used, and tell 'em to keep their OEM license.

2) Buy parts directly, build what you don't have, and sell the extra 999 you're not going to use.

Apple's an OS maker--but they're their *own* OEM. No one complains about their preinstalled OS, just like no one complains that Palm sells Palm OS equipped handhelds, no one complains about the X-Box having MS software on it, and no one complains when their VCR works.

"no one," of course, exempts the Open Source Zealots who do complain about this, and every other faucet of bundled hardware.

Overclock your iBook to 600MHz.

[willy_me]

Check out accelerateyourmac.com to find out how to overclock the iBook to 600 MHz at a 100MHz system bus. It appears to be very successful as Apple can't ship over 500MHz units for political reasons - they can't outdo their TiBook. As it stands, the iBook already comes with 100MHz memory - just ripe for some overclocking. Combine this with the fact that G3s can run at much higher speeds then the G4s used in the TiBook (just look at the 700MHz iMacs) and overclocking isn't as bad as it first sounds.

The guy that overclocked his iBook noted higher temperatures (of course) but they were well within CPU specs. However, because he also lowered the power-saving speed to 300MHz he found that battery life actually increased. Sounds very cool..

Willy