Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Announce the Power Mac G5 at WWDC?
a.ameri writes "Apple Insider is
reporting that Apple will announce computers based on IBM's 64 bit PPC 970 processor in the upcomming WWDC and will market them as G5. The new Power Mac G5s will sport a completely new motherboard design utilizing DDR 400 RAM as well as AGP 8x graphics, FireWire 800, and USB 2.0, sources said. "In the box" connectivity among the news systems is based on Hypertransport which provides 64-bit addressing and will replace Apple's multilevel bus architecture found in current systems. Initial offerings of the Power Mac G5 are said to boast 1.4 to 1.8GHz, single core PPC 970 processors, with the possibility of a dual 1.8GHz chips shortly thereafter."
Apple themselves have made public demonstrations trying to debunk the myth that clock speed is processing power. Being known for sticking to "slower" processors, it seems that Apple is finally starting to cave into the demands of the consumers.
I have tried to use the Distributed.net client on an AMD Athlon 1600 XP running Linux 2.4.10 and a G4 864 Mhz using Mac OS X 10.2. It seems that in terms of raw processing power, the G4 was actually more powerful, at over 10,260,280 nodes/sec, while the Athlon was only at 8,160,200 nodes/sec, and that's with no backgrounds processes running (besides the OS)
3... 2... 1...
Go!
Which wintel motherboards have fw 800 and hypertransport? I'd be interested.
Appleinsider is a rumour site, btw.
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
Anyway, what I found most interesting about the rumor/article was the inclusion of USB2.
They have long championed Firewire as superior (which it is, and is still included) but it is nice to see that they are willing to adapt and a more common USB2.
This acceptance of USB2 shows a willingness to accept standards, no matter how wrong they are.
Panther (10.3) we know is coming, that is a given and that is the substance.
The "Shadow" is the G5 and even the most die-hard mac fan would most likely utter the phrase:
I will believe it when I see it.
IMO, apple needs to figure out if they are going to keep/dump metadata...and stick with it.
I find it quite half-assed you can generate previews of images, but not store them.
(with the exception of Internet Explorer, but only one at a time)
(won't someone think of the pr0n collections?)
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
The comparison is not as stupid as it sounds, your argument is actually a lot worse. Not trying to flame here, but seriously, do you really think the amount of Ghz is what really counts nowdays ?
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Well, when AMD switched to the Barton architecture for the Athlon XP, they boosted the performance rating to 3000 (and it truely was a 3Ghz equivalent) but dropped the clockspeed a bit (relative to the 2800)
A lot of you have been commenting that you're surprised they have USB 2 ports on them. I personally am not surprised to see them - the current MDD G4s have USB 2 ports on them, it's just the drivers in OS X make them into USB 1, you can actually replace the drivers and get nice 800Mbps ports. The fact that the hardware is there does not mean that they will be supported in the OS - it just means that USB 2 ports are cheeper to get hold of than USB 1 ports.
Bob
This is a troll but I'll respond anyways.
:P
Most of us LIKE Mac OSes. Up until Win2000, I wasn't satisfied with Windows OSes...I am a Wind'rs programmer by trade, but I always liked my Macs just a little more. Between the time os OS9 and 2000 -- I was a little torn over what was better...I think Win2k was a lot better than OS9 in retrospect.
BUT soon after that, I picked up the public beta of OSX and haven't been back to 9 since. I was right back in the Mac camp because it meant for once I didn't need to terminal into my Unix servers to get simple things done. On Windows, yeah, I have the Cyrix (err...is that it?) GNU Tools -- but it never felt right or integrated. The interface felt once again in the background to OSX.
Honestly, I wish Apple was a software only company -- The hardware is nice, but this is the area it seems to lag. I use to buy into the The MegaHertz Myth Is Wrong -- but as a programmer, I realized folks should not have to optimize their code for a specific base EACH AND EVERYTIME A PIECE OF HARDWARE CAME OUT. Some apps work with Altivec rather nicely...they can afford to optimize their code. Most of us want to write efficient portable code that can work anywhere. Of course, I do get pissed off when I hear friends talking about code I *KNOW* they've optimized for Windows and then left unoptimized for the Mac and then compare the two...I do a lot of work in the sound design industry and a lot of friends work at companies that make DSP solutions (both massmarket for consumers and the higher end for designing items that will not be of use to many others) -- and I see this all the time. Someone knows how to optimize to the SSE sets on Intel and have no problem tweaking the hell out of it and claiming benchmarks, but throwing the ported code to some monkey that knows only enough about the Mac to be dangerous -- and its embarassing because they then make outrageous statements about the relative speeds.
As for lack of Applications -- I don't know where folks get this. Numberwise -- yeah. Professional app to professional app, we have what we need. Anything in my field has an equivelent analog in both the Mac and the PC world -- with a lot of specialized apps actually being Mac Only (or at the least Mac First) because the creative market still looks at Mac Users as being more in this camp.
Again, I realize your response was a troll, but I felt like educating ya anyways
but at a certain point wouldn't you want clock speed over architecture ?
No. Intel has shown that you can sacrifice too much chasing clock speed in the case of the P4. Look at the Centrino - the same performance of the P4M at 2/3 the clock speed.
With the G5 we are talking about a 64 bit CPU with clock speeds in the 1.2 - 1.8 GHz range. This is in fact quite competitive just on a clock speed basis with current 64 bit designs from AMD and Intel.
You seem to be missing the point - what good is the Centrino being just as fast at 2/3 the clockspeed if the P4 still has enough headroom to (say) quadruple it's clockspeed and the Centrino only has enough headroom to double it ?
CPU performance can be increased by (amongst other things) architectural improvements or by ramping clockspeed. Neither, in an of itself, is inherently superior to the other. A CPU that performs twice as fast per clock, but is only clocked at 1/3 the speed, is still slower.
You also have to take into account share dillution too.
Depends on your perspective. If you are interested in the market cap of the company, total number of shares x market price indicates the valuation of the company is 12x what it was in 1987. If you are interested in shareholder return, then the number is 4x.
Either way it shows that the original post is totally off-base.
In the computer world, there is no speed limit.
Yes there is: you. Everything external to the CPU limits the computer these days, and responding to human events is like idling at a stop light; your raw RPM doesn't make a big difference. According to procinfo and top, my computers are idle a good 90% of the time. Everyone chasing clock speed really needs to take a step back and instead design an architecture that meets the burst processing pattern that most people have.
The other part of the analogy is not about performance, it's about packaging. You don't buy a car on speed alone. There are styling and comfort factors, and suitability to a purpose. What's really amazing is that Apple is one of the few that understands that; you'd think PC builders would be more inclined to do that sort of thing in order to differentiate themselves from all the other clones that are on shelves.
However this rumor seems to have enough other sites reporting generally the same thing to be true.
I'd say that that doesn't mean much because rumor sites will probably copy from each other without attribution.
JP
Yeah, it's a rumor, but this is a pretty substatiated rumor, that i think we can all agree is happening. One thing still in dispute, is if the new processor is gonna be called a G5 or not. I'm sure Apple wants to get away from the image that the motorola processor havee generated over the last few years.
I would expect to see the PPC 970 at WWDC, or shortly after, i.e. August. As for USB 2, it's coming. Apple has already started using USB 2 cards in its powermac lineup (just not supported by the OS). As for apple trying to catch up in the Mhz race, i don't see this. IBM is the one who's set the Mhz of the 970. I also agree with many rumor sites, stating that the 970 will not be any more expensive that the current G4 lineup. Apple is the only company getting anything based off the G4 motorola line, but IBM currently builds the 970 for it's own blade servers, thus they don't have to gear up just to make chips for apple.
Yeah, the P4 is up over 3Ghz, but looking back, crays are still uber fast, and they don't run ungodly mhz......
Also, i wouldn't count on Apple calling it a G5, as apple might go back to calling their chips by their developed name...ie-970
As for 10.3 and the 64-bit stuff, the 64 bit only comes into play when you start getting 64 bit software to run on the machine, that's why Panther is so big, it'll be a 64 bit OS. Also expect a 64-bit version of Project Builder to help move to 64-bit apps.
AMD is not the founder of hypertransport...They are part of a group who's developing it, and one of the last members to join if i recall...... And I don't think that the transition of an AMD chip is much more complicated than you make it out to be....
Personally, if the idea of a 970 makes your blood boil, wait until WWDC and make an informed choice...if you can't wait to buy a mac, but it now.....
How cany anyone say that the 970 is behind AMD/Intel? Last time i looked, IBMs own 970 is FASTER than the new opterons, aren't those supposed to be fast?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but i find that PC users bash what they don't understand. Apple is heavily imitated by the PC world, so the must be doing something right. Let's just all watch and see what happens at WWDC, and talk about it later. Gossiping about new Mac Hardware......$Free Writing Cocoa apps that screa.........$Free Showing your PC friends how must faster your PPC 970 is over their WINTEL box......$Priceless
Back in 96' or 97' I can recall a bunch of hype in the public markets for the infamous DEC ALpha. I can recall banner adds here on slashdot for "64bit power" and other advertisments basically to the effect of "my processor is bigger than yours" type stuff. The difference now is that the market seems slightly more ready for 64 bit computing as more than 2 vendors are selling 64 bit systems. Intel (ia 64), IBM (ppc 970), Transmeta (128bit/2 core), MIPS, AMD, and I think you can still buy a new Alpha from HP still. I suspect the market still isnt' ready for 64 bit computing, but the saturation of vendors trying to be the one wwho actually makes penetration, like sperm on the egg of the consumer market. Apple is probably the most end-user'ish vendor on the market with very little server penetration, and this is promising news. Most of the other 64 platforms go the way of awsome servers. Apple has the chance to sell systems to mac-heads who would do anything to recapture their former elitness geek glory of years gone by. The onyl way 64 bit system will work ijs if they are compatible with the 32 bit software, and yes I mean the OS + user apps. This is why Apple, and AMD have an advantage. Intell seems to have the notion that since it is the market leader that it can simply force a new architecture down our necks, and the market has decided otherwise, and Intel hasn't lived up to its own expectations either. Time will tell is the IBM incarnation of the PPC is going to make it, and Apple has a history of over pricing their gear. If they could get their systems down to the average price of $1200 usd, then they would have a chance.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
appleturns(100% reliable news by Steve Jobs's alter ego)
Parent was probaly tongue in cheek, but for the uninformed: As the Apple Turns, now back after a long hiatus, is nothing like an actual rumor site. It is an Apple themed 'soap opera', very funny, by a guy with a great sense of humor and writing skills to match.
JP
I've read several rumor sites myself, and I've read that the PPC970's manufacturing price point is actually cheaper than the existing chips Apple uses. So if this is true, it raises serious issues with Apple. 1. Apple needs higher clock speeds to remain competitive in the minds of Joe Consumer and Joe IT Worker (see #2). 2. If the PPC970 is cheaper to manufacture and consumes less power than the existing G3 and G4 chips Apple computers feature, then the PPC970 needs to be implemented immediately throughout the Mac line. 3. Abruptly phasing out all G3/G4 machines (#2) would kill sales of existing units on the shelves. 4. Apple would want to offer the PPC970 at the top end to enjoy large profit margins from early adopters before implementing the 970 throughout the entire Mac line. The greater good requires Apple to incur short-term losses (think existing G3's and G4's in the stores) in order to leapfrog the entire PC market by offering 64 bit solutions top-to-bottom in their product line. It is crucial Apple comes out ahead of AMD's consumer 64bit offerings. But because of #3 and #4, Apple will probably choose otherwise... If Apple were smart, they'd start off with a single 1.4 ghz PPC970 in the eMacs and iMacs, and then work their way up the PowerMac ladder with dual (or even quad) processors up to 1.8 ghz. Afterall, it would be easier for $7/hr. sales employee at Worst Buy explaining why Joe Consumer should pick a 1.4 ghz 64-bit PPC970 powered eMac over a 2.5 or 3.0 ghz P4 equipped PC than it would continuing to argue the merits of the G4 line...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Well, they discontinued that particular model in January 2001. It seems they were testing the waters with that one, and had not yet fully made the transition (all models shipping at that time did not have it). Fast forward to the present - All currently shipping PowerMac G4s have built-in gigabit ethernet. I doubt it will ever go away now. Curiously, the Apple Store does not mention this as a prominent selling point, placing more emphasis on the modem and airport extreme.