G5 or what...??

M

macxonly

Registered
Okay, so, does anybody know when the hell G5's are going to come out? I am sick and tired of waiting for Motorolla. GET WITH IT. I think Apple should just buy the PPC assets from Motorolla, and work with IBM on the effort. IBM has a much faster G3 chip than Moto's Fastest G4. I keep hearing of Apollo, I keep hearing all these nice things about Moto but what the HELL have they done for Apple in the last 3 years? Whoa, a G4.... Intel and AMD each have released a couple of processors in the last few years (P3/P4/Xeons/Duron/Athlon/Thunderbird), and they each have released 64-bit processors. Yeah a dual G4 is nice, but compared to a dual P4 Xeon/Thunderbird...?

I'm not letting Apple off either I mean where is the system bus and the fast RAM? People need to start pushing Apple again. The software engineers have done their work, and yeah the EEs have worked hard too, but we need to push those EE's as much as the Software Engineers have been pushed on X. Apple is doing good but push push push PUSH PUSH! DON'T LET THEM SLACK OFF!!!

This is a major rant, what do you guys think?
 
i think it is posts like this that remind me i am just a computer user - not a fanatic about saving nanoseconds and the latest greatest hardware. I think i would probably never bother to buy the cutting edge of technology because i don't really need it. all i need is a computer that works well, is stable, is easy to use and has all the software i need to get my work done easily. I think sitting and getting your panties all bunched over the rate of technology development is strictly a type A personality thing and i just can't relate. I think the idea of apple being in bed with ibm makes me sick to my stomach. I think most of us buy a mid range computer and do mid range tasks on it. and i think we're pretty happy. we had better be - we're going to be using it for a few years because there are real things to pay for in life like food, rent, transportation, clothes, kids, saving the rainforests, etc.. i think i would rather see developers spend time making the most of the level of hardware i have rather than apple making me obsolete before i really need to be. I think all good things come to those who wait patiently. I think i don't lose sleep over whether apple releases a G5 now or next year.

this is an anti-rant. what do you guys think? ;)
 
Umm... IBM's G3 is NOT way faster that Motorola's G4. Last I checked the fastest IBM G3 runs at 1GHz (and that's not even shipping in volume) while the Motorola G4's are shipping in volume at 1GHz. Not saying that I wouldn't want faster systems from Apple, especially now that they are trying to position itself in the highend graphics market, they need to improve their systems, but I think just focusing on the processors is a bit shortsighted. There are definite room for improvement in Apple's machines, but to be honest, I am perfectly content with my 667MHz G4. Not that I would turn down a faster machine, but I think I've already reached my "performace plateau". My TiBook does everything and anything I asked it to with acceptable speed, and I don't see how a faster processor would improve my productivity and enjoyment that much more. I've talked to plenty of engineers, and no one scuffed when I told them my new laptop has "only" a 667MHz chip - in fact, they were all like, "well, CPU speed really doesn't matter that much anymore". I mean, how many idle cycles do we have to waste for bragging rights?

Also, CPU speeds means so little in the real world. Sun workstations and SGI workstations rarely hit above 500MHz, yet they are high performance machines. Also, Intel's next generation processor (Itanium) isn't even hitting far above 500MHz either.
 
I agree. I am a college student (an Computer/Electrical Engineer major as well, go figure ;-) and things get tight. Hell I make 6.00/hr in a lab working 15 hours a paycheck with 18 credit hours of school. I just want to see things up to speed. I am not going to go out and spend $4000 (probably not even $2000) for a new computer cuz I frankly don't have it.

Big and better now means big and better when I am in the ring to buy another computer.

As far as IBM goes, hell I would like Apple to buy off all the PPC assets, but that isn't going to happen is it?

Remember, I just wanted to see what was on everybody elses mind ;-)

-macxonly

P.S. keep 'em rolling! :-D
 
I guess not everyone is compiling a kernel, working with Video or Audio, or a 2 gig Photo in Photoshop ;-)

After all the mac community is the "creative" community right?

BTW why don't you put those spare CPU cyles to use:

SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence):
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Folding (protein research: aka cures for many diseases):

http://folding.stanford.edu/


Aren't there any Positive reasons for faster Macs?
 
I agree, the G5, 6 and 7 are way overdue.

Yes, Joe Average Consumer should be happy with their G3 or 4, but if Apple wants to be a serious contender in the server market with Xserve, they better light a fire under Motorola's ass and tell them to "s*it or get off the pot!"

Intel is about to release it's second generation Itanium processor and the AMD Opteron is almost out the door.

The G4 at any speed is going to look pretty wimpy next to these modern day bad boys.

Big business doesn't run their website and intranet on Bondi Blue iMacs in the corner of some room. They run it on top of the line hardware that's going to last them for years to come.

My only concern with Xserve is that the G4 is dated. I wonder if a lot of corporations will wait for the G5 before investing in these new servers.

A lot like how many software companies shunned OS X while waiting for X.1.

Yes, I saw the Xserve keynote address and all the companies that came forth supporting Xserve, but I'm not talking about companies Apple already has in it's pocket.
 
Phatsharpie said:

"Umm... IBM's G3 is NOT way faster that Motorola's G4"
Click to expand...

Um, yeah G3's aren't as fast as the G4's? Think Again. IBM has been working on these suckers for a while and have tried to get Apple to adopt the 1 ghz G3 chip. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17712.html

Also check out this posting that stated IBM should hit 1.5 ghz by next year. Notice one thing on this site: The Date. Funny, May of 2000. hmmmm.....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/15240.html


'nough said.

-Macxonly

Apple ditch Moto, and ship the G5!
 
The G3 can be as fast or faster than a G4 of slightly lesser speed depending on what you're using it for. Not all applications are optimized for AltiVec.

The G3 is now considered the lowend to Apple so they certainly won't be adopting a 1.5 GHz G3s that could potentially woop on the G4, especially in their mobile platforms, anytime soon.

IBM uses their G3 PowerPC architecture for other projects such as the Nintendo Gamecube. They're going to sell a lot more processors to Nintendo then Apple every thought about buying in a lifetime so I doubt their to concerned if Apple adopts their technology or not, they'll still develop it either way.

Anyway, you are talking about the theoretical limits of G3 processor prototypes that have yet to be released into the market.

There is no G3 that is "way faster" than a G4 to date, but they are certainly able to keep up under the right conditions.

Now that the iBooks have atleast 16 MB Radeon cards, you should see a big improvement in OS X. And since the chips has 3D hardware acceleration and is AGP 2x, it should work with Quartz Extreme as well.
 
That said, now if IBM had reached the theoretical limit of the G3 (back when it was expected to in 2001), and the fastest G4 is 1 ghz then I would say Moto's not living up to the alliance. (Of course you then have to also acknowledge that Moto's been working on Apollo...) You KNOW IBM has these G3's cuz you know they have the cash to throw at R&D. Heck the Celeron operates at 1.3 ghz, and that is Intel's low end (speaking of theoretical limits). But cycles don't mean anything do they ;-) Really, why SHOULDN'T Apple put these suckers in the ibook? This might give Moto a kick in the arse. Hmmm, this gives me goosebumps about MWNY ;-) Maybe I should bite my tongue :-D

But really, Moto isn't the only one at fault. Apple really needs to increase the system bus, and RAM speed, don't you think? Without those, there would be a major bottle neck in computing past 1 ghz.

-macxonly
 
Here is what I know of motorola [which is a lot more than I know about macs, which still isnt much, but anyway :) ]

Motorola "has the goods". They have g5's up and working right now. The problem is yield. The G5 [like the g3, g4 etc] are a tough chip to produce, and therefore it takes a long time for their Fabs to ramp up to the production levels needed to put these out there. Not to mention that I am sure they are working through the early revisions of their silicon.

Having 5 G5 systems in stock at the apple store doesnt help most of us :)
 
I don't understand this IBM worshipping that's going on. People seem to think that IBM have G3's running at 1.xGHz shipping in volume. This is totally untrue. The truth is that the latest G3 (the FX) tops out at 1GHz, and that's NOT shipping in volume at all! In fact, there are hearsay going around that IBM couldn't produce enough volume of 800MHz G3's and that's why the latest iBook don't have them. I don't see how the IBM G3's are SO MUCH faster than the Motorola G4's.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/2FF4861D6755A6CA87256BB1006B1DE6

Also, IBM isn't even using their G3's in their RS series of workstation. They are using G4e's running up to 450MHz.

http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

Now some of the RS uses the POWER architecture, and if you want to compare the power of these processors with PowerPC's, then I agree with you. The POWER4's rock, but until it comes down in price, there would be no way for us to see them in Macs.
 
Is the Mac OS compatible with the Power4 or any of the other IBM processors that are better than the g4s? if so, wouldn't it be possible to buy one and use it as a mac, although you'd spend way more money on it I suppose.
 
Oh Good God!

How did a Wildcat get in here? I thought you guys were all knuckle-draggin, mouth-breathing Windows 98 users! :eek:
 
if MacWorld NY doesn't give us a new processor it wont be at SF either, we'll have to wait a year. Most likely they are gonna push the speed up a bit and MWNY but it would be nice to see a G5 or whatever stupid codename they give it. Personally I like the "Ballbuster 1"
 
Originally posted by xaqintosh
Is the Mac OS compatible with the Power4 or any of the other IBM processors that are better than the g4s? if so, wouldn't it be possible to buy one and use it as a mac, although you'd spend way more money on it I suppose.
Click to expand...

The POWERx architecture has binary compatibility with the PowerPC API, so technically it's possible to run OS X on top of POWERx chips. However, at present it is not possible to run OS X on any of the RS workstations, and it's not possible to simply plug in a POWERx chip in existing Macs. Also, the POWERx chips, especially the POWER4's, are very expensive. The POWER4's are also huge and are energy hogs. But the chip itself is amazing. It runs at around 1.5GHz but it beats the fastest AMD/Intel processors hands down - no matter what benchmarks you run. It's an amazing piece of technology.
 
i dunno but i thought i'd just throw this in... the Motorola "roadmap" for their processors...

PPCROADMAPGIF.gif
 
Originally posted by phatsharpie


The POWERx architecture has binary compatibility with the PowerPC API, so technically it's possible to run OS X on top of POWERx chips. However, at present it is not possible to run OS X on any of the RS workstations, and it's not possible to simply plug in a POWERx chip in existing Macs. Also, the POWERx chips, especially the POWER4's, are very expensive. The POWER4's are also huge and are energy hogs. But the chip itself is amazing. It runs at around 1.5GHz but it beats the fastest AMD/Intel processors hands down - no matter what benchmarks you run. It's an amazing piece of technology.
Click to expand...

I would hope so! IBM puts the Power4 in its mainframe and server computers. It better open up a can of whoop-arse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top