IBM G5 Dual-Core 2.5 ghz

boyfarrell

Registered
How much power do these 'low-power' chips use? How much to they convert to heat? Are they still cool enough for laptops?
 

boyfarrell

Registered
I found this link after a few mins of searching:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/07/20050707113252.shtml

970MP
Dual core
1.4-2.5GHz
Each core has 1MB L2 cache
One core can be swiched off for low power mode

Also low power 970FX processors were described:

1.2GHz at 13W
1.4GHz at 13W
1.6GHz at 16W

Can 13 - 16 Watts be disappated in a laptop?

The original G3 in the first iMac disappated about 3 watts for example.
 

Mikuro

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
I think the current G4s use about 19w at 1.42GHz, so I guess these G5s would fit in quite nicely. I might be wrong, though. I'm not quite clear on which model numbers are laptop chips and which are desktop chips. 7447A is the one used in PowerBooks right? Anyway, I'm getting this info from http://www.powerbookcentral.com/columns/hildreth_moore/g5g4.shtml if you want to check it out yourself.

And the article makes it sound like the new low-power G5 is a variant of the current G5. i.e., it has only one core. Bummer. Dual-core low-power G4s should be coming out by early next year at the latest. It'd seem silly to make a PowerBook G5 and then make a faster PowerBook G4 a few months later! But I guess that's a moot point, since then they'll probably go straight to Intel by then.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
I guess Apple has already decided whether to go with dual core G4s or single core G5s for the PowerBooks. However: We don't really know when both FreeScale and IBM are ready to produce enough of the chips, so we even might see another round of single core G4s in PowerBooks...
 

opus66

Registered
Jobs never said that IBM PPC wasn't going to be a viable conrtibutor in the next 2 years... it was 3+ years down the road where the differences would become much more apparent, so why not prepare for the future starting today?

Apple will use all of those chips in whatever configs make sense (i don't think a G5 powerbook is out of the question... although my 1st guess would have been the laptops to be the very first Intel influence)... An iMac DV with a one dual core chip would be nice if they could keep it cool enough...

Regardless... the IBM chips are a welcome site, but 'i told you so' ... i don't agree. They're a good year late.. and that's after the powermac G5 introduction fiasco and all of it's ridiculous shipping delays. Apple's concerns are obviously going to be the lowest priority with IBM, so I'm glad they're going away... and no last minute posturing will change my mind about that.

Apple gives Intel some bragging rights and the motivation to push the envelope and distinguish themselves from AMD...rather than become a commodity producer. This bodes extremely well for Apple who in a few short years will be poised to tap into the lucrative 'gamer' market segment.
 

Carlo

All your base are belong
whilst Intel just announced these processors to the public I doubt apple didnt know they where on the way. These companies would share road map infomation all the time.

I still think the switch is a good idea. I think intel is more focused on processor design
 

Shookster

Registered
IBM doesn't seem very focused on anything. They've sold off a lot of their product areas, most recently their PC sales division.
 

Viro

Registered
Shookster said:
IBM doesn't seem very focused on anything. They've sold off a lot of their product areas, most recently their PC sales division.
If anything, selling of their PC sales divisions demonstrates that they do have a focus. And that selling PCs isn't one of them. As it stands, IBM does literally everything. They are a PC reseller like Dell, selling PCs and laptops. They make super computers, like the defunct Cray super computers and not-doing-so-well SGI. They are a database solutions developer, like Oracle. They develop a Java VM, like Sun. And they manufacture processors among other things, like Intel.

IBM is literally taking on the world, and the fact that they've sold off their PC division shows that they are starting to get their priorities right, and are beginning to focus on whatever field it is.
 

powermac

iMac Dual 2.0 17'
Sounds to me that IBM is definetly prioritzing what makes a profit for them. Without Apple using the PPC chip, what reason would IBM have to continue being competitive with chip development? I only ask this because I am not sure what else the PPC chip is used for?

I accept that Apple has decided to switch to intel, although I am not pleased with it, Apple must have good reason. Some one posted that IBM's actual development, and roadmap with the PPC, when compared with Intel, is actually good. Perhaps if Jobs did not make the promise for a 3 GHZ G5, who knows.

I am not a power user on computers, although I am concerned that with Intel, will we enjoy the stabilty we have come to expect? My understanding is the PPC chip, although clocked slower, actually performs more efficent than any Intel offering.

Another factor that mildly concerns me is Intel is a company who mass produces chips, this is how they make a profit. For PC manfactures, this would make sense. For Apple, unless they project a significant growth in market share, are they worried about the supply demand of microprocessors?

I guess, as an average user of computers, and long time user of Macintosh, I don't really see the reason for Apple's switch. I felt the close relation between IBM & Apple was a good one, that fueled some innovation.
 

Pengu

Digital Music Pimp
it comes from the marriage of well designed parts, and great software, which is designed to run on that exact hardware. a HP workstation could be just as stable as a G5, so long as the drivers were all 100% compatible with the hardware and each other, and windows wasn't 8 months into it's install-life with a registry that looks like a NYC dumpster.
 

Krevinek

Evil PPC Tweaker
Mikuro said:
I said it before Apple's big announcement and I'll say it again now: The high-end PPC is looking better in comparison to Intel's offerings now than it has in the past half-decade or so.
This is precisely why the high-end will be the last to switch. Personally, I wouldn't mind a mixed platform, if it makes the lower-end cheaper to produce and sell. OS X is at a point where heterogenerous product lines isn't going to hurt it... except in the gaming area, or other fields where the use too much assembly.
 

opus66

Registered
IBM has done nothing but underdeliver and delay product introductions and shipments for the past year...
Regardless of chip superiority/inferiority... it's an easy choice for apple when IBM's biggest clients become Microsoft and Sony.

It would be a slow death to remain with IBM. Like being trapped in a bad job in a poor economy... I'm sure some of us can relate on some level.
 

pjeski

Registered User
opus66 said:
IBM has done nothing but underdeliver and delay product introductions and shipments for the past year...
Regardless of chip superiority/inferiority... it's an easy choice for apple when IBM's biggest clients become Microsoft and Sony.

It would be a slow death to remain with IBM. Like being trapped in a bad job in a poor economy... I'm sure some of us can relate on some level.
How is it any better to align with intel, whose biggest customers are Dell and HP? Apple is never going to be the most important customer to any major chip supplier.
 

opus66

Registered
thought i covered that previously.

opus66 said:
Apple gives Intel some bragging rights and the motivation to push the envelope and distinguish themselves from AMD...rather than become a commodity producer. This bodes extremely well for Apple who in a few short years will be poised to tap into the lucrative 'gamer' market segment.
Microsoft isn't exactly on Intel's Christmas list right now after switching the xbox chip...
Dell and HP are indeed large volume customers, but running an OS that demands nothing unique from it's chip design ...

Once the mac starts running both systems simultaneously, Dell no longer holds the distinction of making the highest quality PC's on the market... a position that will erode their image and make them scramble cut a deal with Macintel...

Apple is poised to make major inroads into the windows monopoly, unless other strategies and technologies (like home media units and game stations) erode the importance of the home computer significantly in the next 2 years... Longhorn already looks like it won't pose half the challenge it should...

Intel is not afraid of Microsoft, and Apple as a client is a major image boost. IBM on the other hand will wait on Microsoft hand and foot for the next few years..
 

Viro

Registered
opus66 said:
Dell and HP are indeed large volume customers, but running an OS that demands nothing unique from it's chip design ...
So... you are basically saying that Mac OS X is a resource hog, is inefficient and requires loads more CPU cycles than a comparable OS to accomplish the same task ?

The fact is, it isn't the OS that should tax the CPU. It should be the apps. I find your argument very odd. If OS X were to tax the CPU more than windows, it'll be obvious which OS people will run.

Once the mac starts running both systems simultaneously, Dell no longer holds the distinction of making the highest quality PC's on the market... a position that will erode their image and make them scramble cut a deal with Macintel...
Dell isn't reknown nor is it popular for making high quality systems. They are big, because they sell cheap, and if you are a large corporate customer, you get more discounts than you can shake a stick at with some good support contracts thrown in (same day on site repairs). Apple has nothing like this, nor should they. Dell is in a completely different league, and they should stay there.

Apple is poised to make major inroads into the windows monopoly, unless other strategies and technologies (like home media units and game stations) erode the importance of the home computer significantly in the next 2 years... Longhorn already looks like it won't pose half the challenge it should...
And this changes things because? Panther was/is miles ahead of XP in many areas. Apple will make no major inroads into the Windows monopoly just because Longhorn is late to ship, or doesn't have all the advertised features. To claim otherwise is to show very little understanding of why Windows is installed on >90% PCs world wide, and how Microsoft has become the dominant player in the market.

In short, it isn't the quality.

Intel is not afraid of Microsoft, and Apple as a client is a major image boost. IBM on the other hand will wait on Microsoft hand and foot for the next few years..
Given Apple's history and Jobs propensity to behave like a prima donna, how long will it be before Jobs sees Intel 'lagging' and not doing things according to his vision? Intel is larger than IBM, and Intel has way more chips customers than IBM. Intel isn't going to do what Jobs wants them to do, unless it will benefit them. Until Jobs sees that, he'll keep on wondering why people never take his company seriously at a bargaining table.
 

pjeski

Registered User
opus66 said:
(snip)

Once the mac starts running both systems simultaneously, Dell no longer holds the distinction of making the highest quality PC's on the market... a position that will erode their image and make them scramble cut a deal with Macintel...

(snip)
Huh?
 

opus66

Registered
Ummm... and where did I say that the mac was a resource hog and inefficient?

Dude, grow up and stop trying to start a flame war. I find your entire post to be just a little too far to the side of bitter.

I really don't have time to snip and clip quotes here so i'll try and get on with it.

OK, everyone knows Dell has a fair share of detractors for it's quality... but who has a better REPUTATION for building a higher quality PC than Dell? (feel free to disagree here, but I've seen the market research and they've been rated #1 for a while). Are you arguing perception or reality?...

Apple cannot make the inroads with Panther becuase the barriers to entry are simply too high. People and Businesses alike are very afraid of the unknown... investing their money in totally different hardware is a risk they are unwilling to take because "if they're wrong" about any such decision, they know they cannot simply go back to what they had...

When the Intel units roll out.. the potential for change is born...
For a little more money users can invest in a high quality machine that allows the safe option of trying something new without burning any bridges behind them...
If after a year or two Dell joins the party the venue for change widens significantly.

You make really silly assumptions about Perfect Information in the consumer and business market on hardware and software...
Consumers have no clue what the Mac OS can do, they never even make a comparison. Ignorance is widespread, and will remain as such until the barrier to entry drops.

Small pieces of that wall can begin to come down when the switch occurs... and If apple finds some other ipod-like gimmick to maintain image and appeal, more users will be more likely to investigate.

The windows dominance will remain so long as this barrier is too technical for the average cosumer to understand. If that changes, it becomes about which system serves your needs better.

Your opinions about Jobs seem to run pretty deep, but whatever makes you happy. IBM broke the cardinal rule of business. They overpromised and underdelivered. If IBM could not be accurate, then they should have remained quiet. Steve Jobs has both good and bad traits but he's too smart to make hardware predictions without assurance from the source. IBM made him look really bad, and then couldn't deliver 2.5 gHz chips in a timely fashion. I have no doubt he made the right choice in switching... feel free to disagree.

What I know best about Steve Jobs is that he's helming 2 different companies with pristine brand images and reputations for quality. IMO both are well deserved, and I don't think either happened without positive influence from the top, I don't care how he acts in his personal life.

If i've misinterpreted your posting, well then I apologize. Making your views known is what free exchange is all about, but poking and prodding every other sentence, and tailoring inference to meet the needs of your argument is simply antagonistic IMO.
 

Shookster

Registered
Dell are great at making business and "non-gaming" PCs. They're managed to become really efficient at it. I heard that they make the PCs for £50 and sell them for £700-800. It would have to REALLY be worth it for them to switch, as it will take them time to become efficient at creating Macs (time = money), in addition to the initial cost of switching (e.g. new machines if necessary).

Btw, being at the top of some market research list does not mean everyone agrees with the result. I personally think Alienware machines are better quality, but I probably use different criteria to you based on my own personal preferences.
 
Top