Motorola Unveils Chattier Chip
- Thread starter senne
- Start date
Yes, it does and has for some time now.
Unfortunately, as you can see if they released it now it would debut some where between 600-1000MHz, pathetic, and would likely cost 2-3x more than the G4 due to manufacturing costs.
Apple is sitting on it's hands waiting for Motorola to fix this "little problem" as x86 continues to smoke the G4 more and more each day.
Apple, here's a suggesting. Yes, we know x86 is out of the question. You are too stubborn and stupid to go this route. How about just releasing the G3 at some insane clock speeds, 1.5-1.7GHz to start, SMP of course, and kiss the G4 and AltiVec goodbye.
Nobody optimizes their apps for AltiVec. Ok, you're right, Adobe does, my bad. Apple was hell bent on creating this specilized processor much like the SPARC or MIPS. Highly optimized, low core clock speed and very expensive to produce. Unfortunately, the only people who did take advantage of this was Adobe with Photoshop. Everybody else writes to it like it has MHz to spare and that's why every windows port runs like crap and everything else is just feels a little slow and out of place.
I would just like to see Apple succeed this decade and sitting on their hands, waiting for some POS CPU isn't really a good start.
theCaptain
Member that enjoys Meece
Lets not forget that OS X is optimized for Alit-Vec, so before you go off bitching about the G4's performance, remember that just that little engine alone creates a significant advantage in performance over the G3. Compare a 700mhz G4 eMac to a 700mhz G3 iMac or iBook, the performance difference is terrifiic. The G3 simply isnt powerful enough to power some of Apple's latest Apps like iDVD 2, DVD Studio Pro and im sure many more to come. The G4 is a hell of a processor, far superior to the G3, sure a G5 would be great but the G4 has a lot more life in it.
sheepguy42
AFOL
I thought I read somewhere in Apple's site that the compilers in Jaguar for porting UNIX apps are AltiVec enhanced, so your code is already optimized for the G4. Just mentioning.... perhaps soon all apps will use AltiVec, and our superior processor will really prove itself. Then, just when people are starting to realize that the G4 really is better, they will be able to release the G5, which will really tip the scales for our platform of choice.... just speculating.
LordOphidian
Adjutant On-Line
It should be noted that this is the embeded G5, which is a PowerQUICC and not PowerPC processor.
Its not really a CPU as you would have in a computer. Its got the G5 core, with lots of other circuitry on the die to provide digital signal processing and the like.
The PowerPC G5 (the one that will go in the computers) is still on the way apparently. That is if Mot every gets off their ass and produces it.
Its not really a CPU as you would have in a computer. Its got the G5 core, with lots of other circuitry on the die to provide digital signal processing and the like.
The PowerPC G5 (the one that will go in the computers) is still on the way apparently. That is if Mot every gets off their ass and produces it.
The beautiful thing about the G3 is it's ready to ship at a much higher clock speed than the G4. Unfortunately, Apple won't let it. It's always holding the G3 behind the G4.
The GUI performance has a lot to do with the GPU, not CPU. You're comparing an eMac with a 32MB GeForce2 to an older iMac or iBook with an 8MB of VRAM or less. Of course the performance comparison is going to be a lot different. Bus speed and RAM should also be in consideration.
Apple wont produced a G3 machine with the same MHz and comparable hardware as a G4 and for good reason. The G3 would perform just as well in most situations. Yes, AltiVec is great but I'd rather have 700 more MHz from a lot less expensive CPU and power consumption than some instruction set that only Adobe optimizes for. For today's lazy programmers, MHz is all that matters.
OS X's AltiVec optimization does nothing for the applications you are running on it. IBM thinks AltiVec is a joke and for good reason, hardly anyone optimizes for it. 128-bit pipeline is great as well but it bottlenecks on Apple's inferior hardware.
Could you imagine how sweet a 1.5-1.7GHz iBook would be. Slap a 32MB Mobility Radeon 7500 in it with a 5400RPM HD and then tell me what the G4 is going to do about it? This would be possible today if Apple wasn't so stubborn.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Actually, you're wrong here. While your argument about the G3s being ready for production at 1 GHz+ clock speeds is probably true, theCaptain is still right. With OS X 10.1, ALL of the GUI calculations are done WITH THE PROCESSOR. Quartz Extreme in Jaguar will take that load off the CPU and put it on the GPU.. but not before Jaguar. So right now, OS X runs much better on G4s because of the Altivec enhancement. And even when Quartz Extreme debuts, Altivec enhancement will still provide much needed speed boosts to OS X in all areas.
Then I'm confused. Why does my cousins PB G4 400 run like crap in OS X compared to my G4 Cube 450? He has more RAM, a 5200RPM HD, 1MB L2 cache, etc. The only difference is his 8MB ATI RAGE 128 POS graphics card compared to my 32MB Radeon.
You're wong. No, the GUI doesn't currently use the 3D hardware acceleration provided by most graphics cards like QE will, but it does use your graphics card in general for maginfying the Dock, scrolling webpages, resizing windows, watching DVD and using QT. Those are just a few examples, I'm sure there are many many many more.
That's not even putting into account the inferior bus speeds, memory, and MB architecture the G3 is forced to currently run on. Give me a break, the G3 has potential to be a G4 killer.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Would you care to do a little test? I'll prove it.
Open up a Terminal window and type "top -u". (If you don't already know what this does, it sorts the top list by CPU usage.)
Now turn Dock magnification on, and constantly run your mouse up and down the Dock. (Make sure it's actually doing some magnifying that is make the icons small and the magnification size big.)
See how the process called "Window Manager" zooms up to 80% of the processor usage? At least it does on my mom's G3 iBook. It does the same (zooms up, don't remember the exact number) on my G4 cube at home.
Quartz Extreme stands to really improve OS X performance because the CPU handles all the GUI calculating currently. People who are using Jaguar report that this effect (described above) doesn't happen at all with computers that have Quartz Extreme enabled graphics cards. This proves that the CPU is the ONLY thing doing all the calculation (and if you ask any Apple engineer who is working on Mac OS X, I'll bet they'll tell you the exact same thing).
You can repeat this procedure and get the exact same results with any GUI operation. For example, if I resize a window or drag it around constantly in OmniWeb, OmniWeb's CPU usage shoots through the roof to 60% or so. Opening, scrolling through, and closing menus does the same thing too. If the graphics card had ANYTHING to do with calculating the GUI effects, you wouldn't see this dramatic increase in processor usage during simple operations like menu operation.
Oh, and by the way, I have a G4 Cube 450 MHz, and I tried out a 500 MHz Powerbook at the Palo Alto Apple Store opening. Let me tell you that the Powerbook was about on par with my G4 cube, and even a little faster in some respects. Window minimization (which is usually the real-world thing that I use to gauge a Mac's speed) was definitely better (enough to notice) on the Powerbook than on the G4 cube.
Lastly, no, the Powerbook G4 400 MHz does not come with 1 MB L2 cache. The Powerbook G4 _800_ MHz does. Nor does it come with inferior bus speeds. The G4 cube has a 100 MHz bus, and the Powerbook G4 has always had a 100 MHz bus.
You're wrong a lot of the times, are you aware of this?
Here's some of the specs for the first PB G4. YES it does come with 1MB L2 cache. I should know, I've actually USED it. Would you rather have a JPG of the the System Profiler?
Codename: Mercury
CPU: PowerPC 7410
CPU speed: 400/500 Mhz
FPU: integrated
motherboard RAM: 0 MB
maximum RAM: 1 GB
number of sockets: 2 -- PC-100 SO-DIMM
minimum speed: 100 Mhz/10 ns
ROM: 1 MB ROM + 3 MB toolbox ROM loaded into RAM
L1 cache: 32 k data, 32 k instruction
L2 cache: 1 MB backside (2:1)
data path: 64 bit
bus speed: 100 Mhz
slots: single Type I or II (CardBus compliant)
Also, I never said using the Dock, et al, didn't rely on the CPU. All I stated is that you are WRONG and that they rely on the GPU as well. What the hell do you think you're looking at? A GUI completely drawn by the CPU? What the hell do we need video cards for then? Cmon, common sense.
You have a crap GPU, inferior system bus, RAM, etc, no, the G3 is not going to run on par with a G4. Slap a 1.5GHz G3 together with some good hardware and your AltiVec optimization isn't going to be worth crap.
Are you a youngin, because you argue the most absurd points imaginable? I'm just trying to figure you out. No offense.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Despite your obvious arrogance, I might as well respond anyway. I misread your post and thought you meant 1 MB L3 cache.
Video cards are for things like games and rendering where you use textures and need really intensive processing that needs to be done while the CPU is doing something else. Maybe you are right that some of it goes to the GPU (although I still have yet to see a shred of evidence from you), but most of the processing (if not all) is still handled by the CPU.
Point being, the graphics card is NOT going to make that much of a difference when comparing a laptop and a desktop with relatively the same specs except for the graphics card. I used the PowerBook G4 500 MHz, as I said, and it was relatively on par with my cube. I dunno about your cousin's PowerBook, but I think something must be wrong with it, because plenty of people are happy with OS X performance on their G4 Powerbooks. And my performance on OS X with my cube isn't spectacular, either.
Hmm.. why not instead just put in a dual 1.4 GHz G4 with the same hardware and be done with it. (Oh, wait, I forgot. The G3 can't handle multiple processors on the same motherboard! Another reason to go with the G4.) That way you get both a higher clock speed to improve performance as well as the Altivec engine which has some real benefits that you can't seem to admit.
An insult does not count as an argument.
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
Okay, I've posted this fact over and over again, and I really think people need to understand that the IBM G3s do not run at 1+GHz at present! The 750FX chip - the latest G3s produced by IBM tops out at 1GHz. And even at that speed, the chip is NOT shipping in volume!
So to everyone who is clammering for Apple to dump Motorola and jump to IBM for its "faster" G3s - get your fact straight! The 1+GHz G3s from IBM are nothing but rumors. Until IBM ships these mysterious ultra fast processors in volume, it is not an option. In fact, it's nothing more than a pipe-dream.
The speed of the 750FX can be verified at the IBM website.
So stop with the "IBM is out savior because it has G3s running at x.xGHz" mantra already. You are basing your argument on hearsay, and if that's the case, we might as well compare the merits of the G5's versus the 5.0Ghz G3's.
So to everyone who is clammering for Apple to dump Motorola and jump to IBM for its "faster" G3s - get your fact straight! The 1+GHz G3s from IBM are nothing but rumors. Until IBM ships these mysterious ultra fast processors in volume, it is not an option. In fact, it's nothing more than a pipe-dream.
The speed of the 750FX can be verified at the IBM website.
So stop with the "IBM is out savior because it has G3s running at x.xGHz" mantra already. You are basing your argument on hearsay, and if that's the case, we might as well compare the merits of the G5's versus the 5.0Ghz G3's.
They're not shipping because Apple has no intention on releasing a 1GHz G3 next to their 1GHz G4. IBM doesn't have yield problems, Motorola does. Because of this the G3 is stuck in limbo.
IBM released information about their 1GHz G3 almost a year ago. Are you telling me they haven't figured out how to make it run yet? If not, then Apple was pretty stupid for going with the G3 or G4 considering how long it takes to increase the MHz.
Common sense says IBM could make one hell of a processor for Apple. They certainly have no problem putting higher clock speed G3 variants into their highend mainframes. IBM said the hell with AltiVec a long time ago and decided high speed, low power consumption was the answer. Apple didn't bite and now we're stuck in slowville.
Don't get me wrong, my G4 667 does exactly what I need it for and at reasonable speeds but is truly a dinosaur next to my PC.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
Agreed on all points, here, but the G4 still has many performance advantages over the G3. While not many non-Apple applications don't take advantage of the Altivec engine (except Photoshop), the performance benefit from the operating system itself, and all of the other iApps is very significant. iDVD cannot run on a G3 because it desperately needs the G4 Altivec engine in order to acheive the encoding speed (2x the length of the DVD when iDVD was first released, now it's down to 1x). Without the G4, this product would not have been so essential to the digital hub, and it would not have made the SuperDrive so popular.
The other major benefit of the G4 processor is that you can use it in multiprocessing systems. The G3 can't scale like that, so we will be stuck with single 1.5 GHz G3 processors (if what you say about IBM is true), whereas we can probably have dual 1.4 GHz G4 machines by early August.
I don't think power consumption is too much of an issue yet. While the G4 does run hotter and consumes more power than the G3, it's not nearly as bad of a power waster as AMD chips or Pentium 4 chips. Plus, as I said before, the G4 has a significant performance benefit, but with performance comes other disadvantages.
I totally agree that Motorola needs to be ditched, and ditched soon. They have shown time and again that they cannot produce enough chips for demand. First it was the speed dump-speed bump fiasco, then the 500 MHz ceiling fiasco, and now it's just that they aren't willing to invest in the market because they are going more towards the embedded processor market.
But ditching the G4 altogether and going to (possibly) higher clock speed G3s is not the answer. Apple needs to keep the Altivec engine while creating a next generation processor that increase performance in non-Altivec enhanced operations. Will that be the G5 from Motorola? Probably not, as the chips are still not stable enough and they don't have high-enough yields. As for other options, I think we've discussed them to death and I don't need to get into them again.
