powerbook G5?

RacerX said:
Do you have something to add?
Click to expand...

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. :eek:
 
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!!!
 
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).
Click to expand...
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..
 
Zammy-Sam said:
No personall thing, RacerX! But try to avoid such statements..
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
diablojota said:
We are all on the same team after all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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" ???
 
RacerX said:
Funny... I don't.
Click to expand...
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.
 
soulseek said:
racer x i dont think any of us were surprised when apple released the g5 :) :) :)
Click to expand...

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 ?
Click to expand...

You need an expert to answer that question?

and what do u mean by "prone to failure due to overheating" ???
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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? :confused:
 
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...!
 
soulseek said:
racer x i wasnt attacking u...
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
RacerX said:
You need an expert to answer that question?
Click to expand...

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



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? :confused:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Zammy-Sam said:
Seems to be some sensitive side of yours.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top