Slashdot Mirror


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.

6 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. puts Apple in a bind? by imac.usr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
  2. Re:OS X by barryblack · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    --------------------------------------
    in a world without bounderies or fences, who needs Gates anyway?
  3. Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! by jeffy124 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  4. Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers by stripes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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...

  5. Re:Mmmm... by well_jung · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Carl G. Jung
    --
    "With one breath, with one flow, You will know Synchronicity" -La Policia
  6. Re:WOOHOO!!! by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.