# powerbook G5?



## solrac (Apr 19, 2004)

I found this:

http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsID=11921

Also, what do u guys think about Powerbook G5? I think it's awesome but wouldn't it burn the skin off your lap?

Or do you think they can get a G5 to fit in a laptop?? A dual G5 laptop would be the holy grail.

I have a 17 inch G4, 1 Ghz.... hopefully it will make it easy for me to trade up to a G5 laptop :-0 :-0


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 19, 2004)

I am sure that when the G5 will find its way into the powerbook, it won't run at clock speeds as the powermac and xserve. And in the 90nm production and let's say a clock of 1,6Ghz or 1,8Ghz it shouldn't heat that much. Anyway, I am quite sure it won't have a handle


----------



## diablojota (Apr 19, 2004)

Anyway, G4 PBs are updated...


----------



## jobsen_ski (Apr 19, 2004)

that "hanndle" is just a concept by a very clever Japanese Designer "PowerBook G5 prototype at right is the Applele Powerfulbook R5 by Isamu Sanada, July 2002" 
www.applele.com/


----------



## Lycander (Apr 19, 2004)

I'm pretty sure the G5 has power management capabilities much like the G4, maybe even better. Like scale the CPU frequency down on-the-fly when it's not busy.


----------



## diablojota (Apr 19, 2004)

I think the current G5 already does this?  I don't remember for sure, but I do remember that you could choose to set the machine to scale already.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2004)

Okay, our we forgetting the G4 PowerBook came out almost two years after the G4 PowerMacs. The only reason Apple released the PowerBook G3 at the same time as the Power Macintosh G3 was because the G3 is basically a 603ev with a special cache method.

Hope you guys aren't surprised when a year from now you are still asking when the PowerBook G5s are coming out. Apple won't release a G5 PowerBook until it can match the clock speed of the previous PowerBook G4. Do you really think that Apple/IBM has the ability to put a G5 at 1.5 GHz in a PowerBook today?


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 19, 2004)

I am not sure where I read such an article, but didn't they once show, that the 90nm G5 at 1.6 or 1.8Ghz (am not sure anymore) would waste less energy than the 1.33Ghz G4 in the (now) previous powerbooks? Right now I think: the less energy consumption -> the less heat the processor produces. Am not sure if these values really correlate. But if they do and the G5 really consumes less energy, I see no reason why it would take another year for the G5 powerbook beside marketing


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2004)

You have noticed the physical differences between the Xserve G5 and the Xserve G4, right? Why do you think they added the air intakes on the face of the Xserve G5 when that space had been used for an additional drive bay on the Xserve G4?

I think heat is still a problem with the G5 that can not be avoided. The Xserve form factor change shows that even with the new G5 processors, they needed more circulation that the previous G4 based model.


----------



## ksv (Apr 19, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> You have noticed the physical differences between the Xserve G5 and the Xserve G4, right? Why do you think they added the air intakes on the face of the Xserve G5 when that space had been used for an additional drive bay on the Xserve G4?
> 
> I think heat is still a problem with the G5 that can not be avoided. The Xserve form factor change shows that even with the new G5 processors, they needed more circulation that the previous G4 based model.



Well, I can't say it's fair to compare dual 2 GHz G5 processors with dual 1.33 GHz G4s 
Now, if those were dual 2GHz G4s, they'd have to remove another drive bay and cut away half of the motherboard to make room for the fans and heatsinks.

I don't know if you've looked at the power consumption figures for the G4 and the G5, but you'll see the G5 has a far lower wattage than e.g. the PPC7455 which was used in PowerBooks up to 1 GHz (867 MHz, perhaps, not sure).



			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> Okay, our we forgetting the G4 PowerBook came out almost two years after the G4 PowerMacs. The only reason Apple released the PowerBook G3 at the same time as the Power Macintosh G3 was because the G3 is basically a 603ev with a special cache method.



You should take a look at the amazing cooling technology of the original PCI graphics G4 from 1999 

http://www.bekkoame.ne.jp/~t-imai/image/g402a.jpg

They did have other reasons for delaying the PowerBook G4, though. The iMacs and iBooks had the highest priority at that time to make the Mac popular in the PC markets. The PowerBook G4 couldn't have been simple to design, and it was very different from the G3s.
And Motorola simply couldn't supply enough G4 processors at that time to fill in the portable market too, - something that shouldn't be a problem with IBM's super-modern mass production facilities.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2004)

ksv said:
			
		

> You should take a look at the amazing cooling technology of the original PCI graphics G4 from 1999



Yep, right up there with the cooling technology used in the PPC 604 series systems.

Hmmm, how long was it before they made their first PPC 604/604e/604ev PowerBook?

Wasn't it _never_?

The first generation of the G4 processors ran *much* hotter than those used in the first PowerBook G4s. Even though Motorola wasn't able to move much in the MHz range in that time, they did make advances in the amount of heat the G4 gave off.

Less we forget, Motorola's main reason for the use of PowerPC based processors was the embedded processor market. Speed comes in a distant second to environmental performance (heat/energy usage). IBM uses these processors in workstations and servers, so their priorities are closer to Apple's (in the desktop area at least).

But I'm sure you knew all that already... you just wanted to keep the thread going, right?


----------



## Lycander (Apr 19, 2004)

Something worth noting:

The CPU cache memory (L2 or L3) is what consumes most of the power and produces most of the heat inside the CPU. I figure the backside L3 cache on desktops is ok, but look at how the L2 cache is now doubled (512K) in the 4774 G4's, most noticeable in the iBooks.

I don't know how much difference it would make if they cut the L2 cache of the G5 down to 256K instead of a full 512K. It might make a difference in heat/power consumption. On a G4, L2 cache would be important, but the G5 has a faster system bus so the CPU can empty and fill its cache quicker than the G4 can. That just might compensate for smaller L2 cache, if it means fitting it into a laptop.


----------



## Ripcord (Apr 19, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Okay, our we forgetting the G4 PowerBook came out almost two years after the G4 PowerMacs.



And exactly how well did this strategy work for them?

Yes, 3% market share overall.  Nice.

Apple's hardware offerings for the past quite a few years have been miserable.  They've been quite embarassing to the Mac community, Apple, etc.  The G5 was a nice kick in the butt (nearly a year ago, now it's starting to get embarassing again) but by and large the things that keep saving Apple are savvy design and some very good long-term and short-term moves in the software space.  Hardware may be where the profit is, but they certainly haven't been even coming close to selling the hardware because of the merits of the hardware.

It would be a Very Bad Thing if in late April 2005 we're still asking "where are the G5 portables?".  Previous (poor) track record is not a valid excuse.

I'm guessing we'll be saying "where are our 3.0ghz Powermacs?" (or 2.6+ghz for that matter) at that time as well.  I hope I'm wrong, though.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2004)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> And exactly how well did this strategy work for them?


We can continue this discussion when you learn the difference between _marketing strategies_ and _hardware limitations_. But as you seem to think that the release date of the original PowerBook G4 and the future release of a PowerBook G5 (and a G5/3.0 GHz) are dictated by the marketing department, I have nothing further to say (I tend to stick with factual discussions).


----------



## celeborn (Apr 19, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> We can continue this discussion when you learn the difference between _marketing strategies_ and _hardware limitations_. But as you seem to think that the release date of the original PowerBook G4 and the future release of a PowerBook G5 (and a G5/3.0 GHz) are dictated by the marketing department, I have nothing further to say (I tend to stick with factual discussions).



You also seemed to almost completely ignore what ksv said about the considerably lower energy consumption of the G5. I don't know much on the matter, but if you're ignoring ksv's comment just because you can't admit you might be wrong then that's rather sad. I hope that's not the case, though.


----------



## kendall (Apr 19, 2004)

celeborn said:
			
		

> You also seemed to almost completely ignore what ksv said about the considerably lower energy consumption of the G5. I don't know much on the matter, but if you're ignoring ksv's comment just because you can't admit you might be wrong then that's rather sad. I hope that's not the case, though.




Lower energy consumption doesnt necessarily mean that a 2GHz G5 will be as cool or cooler than a 1.5GHz G4.  It's actually rather obvious that it doesn't translate that way given the Xserve G5 form factor compared to the G4 as RacerX pointed out.  How about the 9 fans in a PM G5?

1.5GHz is pretty good for a notebook, PC or Mac.  As long as the G4 keeps gaining in performance, what exactly is the problem?  Is 64-bit really necessary for a notebook?  Nobody for the last decade but Tadpole seemed to think so and their notebooks new cost $7000-$15000.  Realistically, everyone freaking over the G5 notebook really has no need for a G5 in a notebook, they just have an underlying desire to have the latest and greatest despite whether they need it or not.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2004)

celeborn said:
			
		

> You also seemed to almost completely ignore what ksv said about the considerably lower energy consumption of the G5.



Not at all, because of the design of the G5 it requires less energy... but is also more prone to failure do to over heating. There is a give and take involved. Fifteen years of studying the industry (both Mac related processors and and processors used in Unix systems) gives me a pretty good understanding of what is happening and why. Those of us who had been watch the industry were not surprised by the G5 when it was released and have a strong understanding of it's properties long before anyone knew if Apple had signed on to use it at all. It also helps to have been following IBM's processor line for the last five years (POWER3, POWER3-II and POWER4 development along with PPC 750 and 4xx series processors).

And I'm confident that ksv is aware of it (even if you are not).



> I don't know much on the matter, but if you're ignoring ksv's comment just because you can't admit you might be wrong then that's rather sad. I hope that's not the case, though.



Did you have an actual point?

Making comments like yours which are aimed at posters rather than the subject is much more sad. Even if I didn't agree with Ripcord, at least he was more on topic than you.

Do you have something on topic to say? I've pointed out the physical limitations. I've pointed out that over coming these limitations can be both daunting and completely out of Apple's hands.

Do you have something to add?


----------



## RacerX (Apr 19, 2004)

As a general post.... I posted to let people know the "what"s and "why"s of the idea of a PowerBook G5. I think the measure of hostility in this thread is odd given that technology has never been a clockwork industry. It has always jumped and stalled, that is the nature of it.

I would venture that most of us have been in it long enough to know this. Though some of the posts, sadly, seem to prove me wrong in that respect.

As the old saying goes: _don't shoot the messenger._


----------



## Randman (Apr 20, 2004)

Everyone should chill just a little bit.  People are getting more overheated talking about a G5 PB than an actual one. 
   I'd love to see a G5 PB, but I do believe we'll be around next April waiting for one, at the earliest.
   And I have to disagree with Ripcord about Apple being dismal lately. The market is strong, though it could be stronger. But the lineup is getting better and better. Now the lowest-end Mac is 1Ghz. That's a pretty big jump in itself.


----------



## diablojota (Apr 20, 2004)

Randman, I agree and disagree with you.  You are dead on that the product line-up is looking much better.
I wouldn't use the word 'dismal', but I would say that Apple is apparently having problems with quality, quantity and updates.  True, Apple does not need to refresh a line as often as say a Dell or HP, but they do need to provide a better dynamic when it comes to updates.  Steve said 3gh by Summer.  This is going to be a major blow if Apple doesn't produce.  The market analysists and financiers are going to bash Apple, the stock price will drop down to the low 20's, etc.  
Also, with the difficulty of releasing products globally, especially since more and more of their revenue comes from foreign countries is also not a particularly warming thought.
I love Apple, but they really need to focus in on some way of improving some of their practices.
As for a G5 PB, I would say that it will be announced in September/October with availability in December/January.


----------



## celeborn (Apr 20, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Do you have something to add?



No, I don't. What you wrote clarified things for me, and thanks for that. I admit my tone wasn't very constructive and I apologise for that. I just wrote what first came to mind in the middle of the night while reading this thread, and well... that usually results in something stupid.


----------



## soulseek (Apr 20, 2004)

G5 powerbooks will not be out anytime soon 
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/04/20040419232454.shtml

and it really is logical. apple wanna make a Powerbook just like all other powerbooks. small, thin, light, well designed, powerfull, very good battery. thats what a notebook should be like!!!

look at the competition....
u have HUGE p4 3.2 ghz laptops that look more like miny towers with a battery life of 30 mins...

and then u have slim centrino laptops at 1.6ghz with normal battery times !!!

the g5 seems to have some time until in a powerbook.


around here i dont think we have a processor specialist.. from my little knowledge i would expect a chip to generate less heat if it has a lower power consumption..
but i really dont know much about processors...
so we can just speculate... 


right now these g4 powerbooks are quite competitive, and NOT that pricy if u compare them to centrino notebooks. the 12 inch powerbook is probably one of the cheapest around if u compare what it includes... 
p4 based notebooks are really cheap, only iBooks can compare with them!!!


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 20, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Fifteen years of studying the industry (both Mac related processors and and processors used in Unix systems) gives me a pretty good understanding of what is happening and why. Those of us who had been watch the industry were not surprised by the G5 when it was released and have a strong understanding of it's properties long before anyone knew if Apple had signed on to use it at all. It also helps to have been following IBM's processor line for the last five years (POWER3, POWER3-II and POWER4 development along with PPC 750 and 4xx series processors).


Those who know a bit about psychology will realise this is a try to avoid agruements and discussions using an authoritarian position.
Sorry, just feel allergic to posts that are underlined by such statements no matter if they are justified or not. No personall thing, RacerX! But try to avoid such statements..


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> No personall thing, RacerX! But try to avoid such statements..



Posts like that can not be taken as anything less than personal.

I suggest that you should try to avoid post like that.


_No personal thing, Zammy-Sam!_


----------



## diablojota (Apr 20, 2004)

Okay children, break it up...  This is a forum to discuss and voice opinions.  Just try to keep it clean... We are all on the same team after all.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 20, 2004)

Sorry for that post. After all I feel better anyway


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

diablojota said:
			
		

> We are all on the same team after all.



Until someone can moderate overtly personal posts such as Zammy-Sam's, I say lets mix it up. His post was as off topic as it gets.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Sorry for that post. After all I feel better anyway



Funny... I don't.


----------



## soulseek (Apr 20, 2004)

racer x i dont think any of us were surprised when apple released the g5   

since u are an expert, care to tell us if the g5 does indeed get hotter thana g4 ? 
and what do u mean by "prone to failure due to overheating" ???


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 20, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Funny... I don't.


Relax RacerX! The heating G5 is still in the powermacs and xserves and not in your head.  I apologize for that post, since it offended you. A mod will soon delete it.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

soulseek said:
			
		

> racer x i dont think any of us were surprised when apple released the g5



I said that I had been following IBM's work in processors including those which lead up to the 970 which Apple had not used.



> since u are an expert, care to tell us if the g5 does indeed get hotter thana g4 ?



You need an expert to answer that question?



> and what do u mean by "prone to failure due to overheating" ???



All processors are prone to failure due to heat... that is the nature of processors. IBM/Motorola/Intel/etc. all make their chips on large wafers and then cut them apart. When they are done they test them to see where they start to have unexceptable failure rates. That is where the clock rating of a processor comes from. Two processors made at the same time can have two completely different failure clock speeds (due to internal heating).

As companies like IBM have been working harder and harder to shrink the size of the processors (and increase their abilities), heat plays a bigger and bigger barrier.

IBM has been known to have higher quality processors than Motorola, the higher the quality in production, the more heat they can take. Perfect example, in the first generation of PowerMac G4's IBM helped Motorola/Apple out by making G4 processors... those were found to be able to clock up to 600+ MHz at a time when Apple was only able to get 450 MHz G4s from Motorola.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Relax RacerX! The heating G5 is still in the powermacs and xserves and not in your head.  I apologize for that post, since it offended you. A mod will soon delete it.



For future reference, the reason it was taken personally was this:



> Those who know a bit about psychology will realise this is a try to avoid agruements and discussions using an authoritarian position.



You blatantly took the same _authoritarian position_ which you decried to publicly attempt to... what, put me in my place?

I can only see that as being personal as you obviously were not following your own advice.

Or did you miss that part of your own post?


----------



## soulseek (Apr 20, 2004)

racer x i wasnt attacking u... 
but since u seem to have a problem with every1 in this thread i can go ahead and answer u.. 

YES I DO NEED AN EXPERT to answer if a g5 gets hotter than a g4.

the g5 might have 9 fans but they are really small and that is what makes the g5 really quiet at normal operating conditions.
at the same time the dual g5 is a dual 2ghz system
i just wanna know if a 1.4 ghz g5 gets hotter thana 1.4 ghz g4... which is what really matters for a g5 notebook at the time...

i suggest u chill and take a few days vacation...!


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

soulseek said:
			
		

> racer x i wasnt attacking u...



I would not have taken the time to reply if I thought you were attacking... but as you appear to have headed down that road we can stop here.


----------



## soulseek (Apr 20, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> You need an expert to answer that question?



if u thought i wasnt attacking u, then u gotta work on ur manners.
that is not a polite way of answering. 

as i said, u need a break!


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 20, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> For future reference, the reason it was taken personally was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't understand why you are so upset about it. Seems to be some sensitive side of yours. However, thought you got the point of that line as it was an example to what you did. Something like your: we computer specialists know... I wanted to say: well, "we psychology specialists know..." Just to clearify your confusion. Now, please get over it.


----------



## acidtuch10 (Apr 20, 2004)

interesting read ! Kinda funny.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Seems to be some sensitive side of yours.



Are we talking personally about me again? I guess _you_ don't get what getting personal is about.

You would be better served doing more self examination rather than examining others. So far, all of your _apologies_ have been half hearted at best.

And we don't need a moderator to clean up your posts. Just you actually meaning what you have said and doing it yourself.

Not that it would fix this at this point... we have long since past that fork in the road. I'll remember that you are someone to take as adversarial in the future.


----------



## Lycander (Apr 20, 2004)

Hate me if you will, here's my uneducated guess.

Was talking with my friends in another forum, the topic was Intel's Prescott CPUs versus their older Northwood. Someone said that the new Prescott chips are worst because they're slower, hotter, power hungrier, more expensive than Northwood. Some differences between Northwood and Prescot.

Northwood: 130 nm process, 512K L2 cache on-die (never mind the FSB for a moment)

Prescott: 90 nm process, 1 MB L2 cache on-die

Now what does this have to do with the G4 vs G5?

Well what my friend was saying is that the 90 nm process means that the wires inside the chip are 90 nm wide. When they get that small heat becomes a bigger issue. This is exactly why AMD hasn't released a 90 nm version of their 64 bit chip yet. With wires that small they're more prone to failure, more suceptible (spelling?) to heat problems. I read an article a while back that flat out said AMD is behind while Intel and IBM already have 90 nm CPUs. The reason for that is they haven't perfected their 90 nm process so their chips were dying in the test labs. The funny thing is that IBM works with AMD and AMD licensed a lot of technology from IBM like SOI, and then there's the Hyper-Transport consortium. But why then, if the G5 (made by IBM) on a 90 nm process is expected to be stable and reliable, why can't AMD enjoy the same 90 nm goodness given their relationship with IBM? One starts to wonder.

Bottomline:
The G5 on a 90 nm process might be more prone to heat failure, hence the need for sufficient cooling. If and when IBM can makethe 90 nm process more reliable, they may feel more comfortable putting it in a laptop.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 20, 2004)

Get over it!


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

Lycander said:
			
		

> But why then, if the G5 (made by IBM) on a 90 nm process is expected to be stable and reliable, why can't AMD enjoy the same 90 nm goodness given their relationship with IBM? One starts to wonder.



It should be noted that AMD makes their own chips... not IBM. This is the same with Motorola (who licensed PowerPC technology from IBM_. IBM has a very high quality control in their production which in turn is why they are able to come to market with that technology sooner than other companies (even those who license that technology). 

If IBM started manufacturing AMD chips based on AMD designs, then AMD would have those chips today... but AMD makes its money off making the chips themselves.


----------



## RacerX (Apr 20, 2004)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Get over it!



Get use to it.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Apr 20, 2004)

ingore-button halloooo!


----------



## evildan (Apr 20, 2004)

The next occurrence of a personal attack by ANYONE in this thread will cause me to get that estranged look in my eye, and no doubtably provoke my skin to turn green and my muscles to expand to 10 times their normal size, ruining yet another shirt of mine.

Please, for the sake of my sanity and wardrobe, no griping or gloating, just be nice and stay on topic please.


----------



## soulseek (Apr 20, 2004)

evildan i think that was a feature of our friend hulkaros, who apparently has left this forum...

(im sure we all know the reasons to his depart..)
(if u dont know i can enlighten u)


----------



## Lycander (Apr 20, 2004)

Aha! I knew something wasn't right around here. I remember some of you guys, but I haven't seen hulkaros. PM me about why he left.
(I myself left for a while because life got busy... sold my Macs... I know I know!!! But I needed the money, plus I found people who wanted them more than I did.)


RacerX:
Yeah I know AMD makes their own chips. But again just now I saw the headlines: "AMDs High-End 90nm Microprocessors to Come in 2005?" I just thought that since IBM and AMD are so close, AMD would tap their shoulder and say "Hey Big Blue, gimme a hand with this?"


----------



## celeborn (Apr 21, 2004)

Lycander said:
			
		

> I just thought that since IBM and AMD are so close, AMD would tap their shoulder and say "Hey Big Blue, gimme a hand with this?"



I don't think that's quite how things work in the business world - a partnership between two big companies doesn't necessarily mean they're going to share all knowledge.


----------

