why doesn't apple just use the power4 ?

[simX]

Originally posted by azosx
#1, a 1GHz G3 was announced almost a year ago yet to this day, the most we are seeing from Apple is 700MHz. It's obviously being held behind the G4. IBM doesn't have a yield problem, Motorola does. If we can't get more than 100MHz out of a chip per year, then Apple was pretty stupid for going with both the G3 and G4.

As you yourself have pointed out many times, Apple is holding the G3 chip back just so that it doesn't steal the G4's "thunder". While Apple may try to make people understand the reality of the megahertz myth (and it is really a myth about megahertz), Apple still knows that clock speed is the thing that many people use to gauge speed. Apple doesn't want to ship a 1 GHz iBook because it doesn't even have 1 GHz iMacs, even though they are G4s and the iBooks would be G3s.

And the only reason megahertz has "won", as you say, is because Intel is a major chip manufacturer and has a lot of investment in the personal computer market. Motorola, on the other hand, doesn't have nearly as much of a market for the G4 as Intel does for its processors, and therefore has decided to focus more of its efforts on other areas.

Therefore, megahertz has "won" only because Intel can keep ratcheting up the clock speed. If Motorola was able to do the same, and we had 2 GHz G4s right now, the megahertz myth would still apply, and the G4s would probably excel in many areas against their 3 GHz P4 counterparts.

#2, IBM has little demand from Apple for the G3 yet they have no problem putting higher clock speed G3 variants in their highend mainframes. If Apple would put a little effort behind pushing the higher clock speed, lower power consumption G3 compared to the G4, I know we'd be seeing a 1.5GHz G3 today. We'd also be saving a lot of money and be seeing better overall performance.

I have yet to see some evidence that IBM has 1.5 GHz G3s. I know that they have had the Sahara G3 for a while, but last I heard they still were topping out at 1 GHz, as Fryke has pointed out.

No, I don't think the G3 is the answer to Apple's problems but I would have liked to see it used more. Similiar to what the Celeron is to the P4. I very much would like to see Apple succeed but I would like someone to explain to me how they intend to do this when right now they are trying to directly compete with the PC. It's like they are preparing to go to the Daytona 500 with a bicycle. How the hell do they expect to win?

Your analogy is totally flawed. A better analogy is this: Would you rather do the Daytona in a car that can speed around curves without slowing down a bit, and has many automatic features so that you can concentrate on actually driving and racing...

... or would you rather do the Daytona in a car that can go really fast on the straightaways but has to slow down for curves, and has so many things you have to worry about that you rarely can think about what you're trying to acheive?

Personally, I'd still pick the former, even if it meant that I didn't win the race.

Or, to get out of the kind of limiting "race" analogy, here's another one that has to do with cars:

Would you rather drive a big honking SUV that has all the features like air conditioning, cup holders, automatic transmission, power windows, in-car vacuum, built-in ping-pong table and kitchen sink, and 50 seats....

... or would you rather drive a small little red Alfa Romeo that has all the necessary features, and does them very well, so that you can actually have fun driving?

I dunno about you, azosx, but I'd still pick the Alfa Romeo if it takes me a few more minutes to get to my destination.

 

[azosx]

Originally posted by simX


As you yourself have pointed out many times, Apple is holding the G3 chip back just so that it doesn't steal the G4's "thunder". While Apple may try to make people understand the reality of the megahertz myth (and it is really a myth about megahertz), Apple still knows that clock speed is the thing that many people use to gauge speed. Apple doesn't want to ship a 1 GHz iBook because it doesn't even have 1 GHz iMacs, even though they are G4s and the iBooks would be G3s.

And the only reason megahertz has "won", as you say, is because Intel is a major chip manufacturer and has a lot of investment in the personal computer market. Motorola, on the other hand, doesn't have nearly as much of a market for the G4 as Intel does for its processors, and therefore has decided to focus more of its efforts on other areas.

Therefore, megahertz has "won" only because Intel can keep ratcheting up the clock speed. If Motorola was able to do the same, and we had 2 GHz G4s right now, the megahertz myth would still apply, and the G4s would probably excel in many areas against their 3 GHz P4 counterparts.



I have yet to see some evidence that IBM has 1.5 GHz G3s. I know that they have had the Sahara G3 for a while, but last I heard they still were topping out at 1 GHz, as Fryke has pointed out.



Your analogy is totally flawed. A better analogy is this: Would you rather do the Daytona in a car that can speed around curves without slowing down a bit, and has many automatic features so that you can concentrate on actually driving and racing...

... or would you rather do the Daytona in a car that can go really fast on the straightaways but has to slow down for curves, and has so many things you have to worry about that you rarely can think about what you're trying to acheive?

Personally, I'd still pick the former, even if it meant that I didn't win the race.

Or, to get out of the kind of limiting "race" analogy, here's another one that has to do with cars:

Would you rather drive a big honking SUV that has all the features like air conditioning, cup holders, automatic transmission, power windows, in-car vacuum, built-in ping-pong table and kitchen sink, and 50 seats....

... or would you rather drive a small little red Alfa Romeo that has all the necessary features, and does them very well, so that you can actually have fun driving?

I dunno about you, azosx, but I'd still pick the Alfa Romeo if it takes me a few more minutes to get to my destination.

No, my analogy is not flawed. You just didn't understand it. I'm gussing you read my analogy on the G4 vs P4 and Athlon and tried to incorporate it into this discussion. I'm not comparing the G4, to the P4 or Athlon.

All I was trying to say is that that Apple has now decided to take on the PC industry with little more than OS X to back them up. Their inferior "bicycle" hardware can not compete against PC hardware and I think they'll find out sooner or later they jumped the gun on their Switch campaign. Especially when these PC converts start demanding some real power and the next Mac they go to but just wont have it.

You know, for some, maybe OS X is enough. It was for me but many need more than a pretty face and a few iApps to sell them over.

 

[fryke]

could you please stop quoting whole posts azosx?

 

[simX]

Originally posted by azosx


No, my analogy is not flawed. You just didn't understand it. I'm gussing you read my analogy on the G4 vs P4 and Athlon and tried to incorporate it into this discussion. I'm not comparing the G4, to the P4 or Athlon.

All I was trying to say is that that Apple has now decided to take on the PC industry with little more than OS X to back them up. Their inferior "bicycle" hardware can not compete against PC hardware and I think they'll find out sooner or later they jumped the gun on their Switch campaign. Especially when these PC converts start demanding some real power and the next Mac they go to but just wont have it.

You know, for some, maybe OS X is enough. It was for me but many need more than a pretty face and a few iApps to sell them over.

Maybe you didn't read part of my post.

Originally posted by simX
And the only reason megahertz has "won", as you say, is because Intel is a major chip manufacturer and has a lot of investment in the personal computer market. Motorola, on the other hand, doesn't have nearly as much of a market for the G4 as Intel does for its processors, and therefore has decided to focus more of its efforts on other areas.

Therefore, megahertz has "won" only because Intel can keep ratcheting up the clock speed. If Motorola was able to do the same, and we had 2 GHz G4s right now, the megahertz myth would still apply, and the G4s would probably excel in many areas against their 3 GHz P4 counterparts.

Apple does not have "bicycle" hardware, in terms of the processor, anyway (bus and RAM speed are very inferior on the Mac I will admit, and hopefully these will be addressed in the upcoming PowerMac update). But the Mac and the G4 processor still hold their own in many operations, and they are definitely not "bicycle" hardware. Like I said above, it's just that Motorola doesn't have that big of a market for G4s, and therefore isn't really devoting as much as they could to producing them, therefore relegating Apple to the backseat and concentrating on the embedded market (cellular phones, PDAs, etc.).

 

[Paragon]

This is exactly the problem for Apple, Mot. is not putting enough ressources into their R&D of the G4. Maybe Apple should figure a way to have people over at Mot. realise that they need to improve the G4, maybe even pay their way out of it. Matter of the fact is that the G4 is a solid processor and has some real benefit's, but they don't have the people willing to develope it fast enough.

 

[fryke]

I just - well, two days ago, but I don't check private messages every day... - received information that IBM is still selling machines with PowerPC 604e processors running at 250 MHz for a little less than 9'000 USD. (And the smallest Regatta servers sell for about 11'000 USD afaik...) So maybe Apple *could* actually make machines with Power4 processors for less than 5000 USD. The question whether this would make sense considering all other facts (Power4 also doesn't run at much higher clock speeds at the moment, compatibility and recompile issues etc., heat, power consumption), remains of course the same.

Updates:

Entry level Regatta Server (Power4 @ 1 GHz), ~12500 USD:
http://commerce.www.ibm.com/content/home/shop_ShopIBM/en_US/eServer/pSeries/entry/6306C4.html

RS/6000 Workstation (604e @ 375 MHz), ~8900 USD:
http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin...ntry=840&cgrfnbr=1826630&cgmenbr=1&cntrfnbr=1

 

[yoshi]

Originally posted by azosx

My one wish though is that they would start releasing the G3 at higher clock speeds and not worry whether or not it passes up the G4 performance wise. If Apple wasn't so stubborn, we could all have 1.5-1.7GHz G3s right now that would likely spank the G4 and would cost us a lot less than a G4 solution as well.

The G3s that IBM makes and the one in the new 700Mhz iBook, the 750FX actually has an altivec compatiable co-processor. I have said from the beginning of the G4 Apple made a grave mistake by moving over when they did because the now quite old 750 was on its death bed (the G3 used in the B/W towers) and the newer and faster 750CX was on its was in at speeds that riveled the G4 at the time.

The other day I read an article about the G3 750FX and I hate to say it, that little chip is smaller, cooler, faster, and <GASP> better that our G4s and to boot they support altivec. Now Apple really has its foot in its mouth because if they DO use the new 750fx in the main lines then they will look silly because its not a G4 or whatever. personally the ability to release (in MAJOR quantities) a 1.5-1.7Ghz Computer that will rival the performance of the current models is definatly a plus. Although there is one problem.

Notice how we never saw an SMP G3? Well the answer is the G3 750XX archtecture simply doesn't support or play well with SMP. The G4 also isn't fully SMP complient and thats why we will *NEVER* see an SMP design with more than 2 processors as the cache would have an issue but thats another thread. Truth being Apple made a mistake with going to the G4, in the beginnning we were stuck with a G4 on a G3 motherboard, next came the whole game of Apple not having the yeilds for the 500Mhz G4 and having to pull the whole line down 50Mhz to 350-400-450 (again). Then we were stuck at 500Mhz for a year.

The simple issue is this. Apple is now obligated to stay with motorola for the time being because IBM can't legally produce a true G4 because moto has the rights and probably is unlikely to give IBM permission to produce chips for Apple. So we are tied to a sinking ship with the Island 10 feet away.. its sickening really to watch Apple get pulled under because they are simply unwilling to switch to an IBM based CPU...

IBM seriously makes better CPUs than Moto Does


okay thats my post of the week and 2¢ of this issue

Dave

 

[drash]

Here are the hard cold stone facts about the Power4:
It's a 64-bit processor.
maximum speed is 1.3 GHz
on-chip L1 cache is 64KBytes per processor
on-chip L2 cache is 1.5 MBytes per processor
off-chip L3 cache - up to 32 MBytes (shared)- normally 4
IBM makes the chip with two full processors on the chip, which is why it is the same size as a P4 XEON and runs just about as hot.
Uses .18 design rules (the G3 750FX sahara uses .13) with copper and Silicon-on-insulator. If IBM were to use .13 design rules on the Power4, power usage would drop by 30%. What is odd, is IBM has not made any noise about doing such a thing which is usually the case. There have been rumors only, but IBM's not talking, which as I said before is odd for them. SPEC2200FP numbers are 1202 sustained @ 1.3GHz for one processor. In contrast, a 2.53GHz P4 has a SPEC2200FP of 864, max. If Apple were to make a Power4 based PowerMac, it absolutely, positively would not be able to run Classic or OS 9 as it does now, without some kind of emulation program, ala VirtualPC. All I know is the silence is deafening.

 

[Captain Code]

Originally posted by Steve Bosell
forget altivec, is there faster than 1 ghz power4's yet?

They won't ever be used because they are way too expensive, and are designed for servers only.

 

[drash]

Originally posted by devonferns


They won't ever be used because they are way too expensive, and are designed for servers only.

I wouldn't say ever. The main reason they are so expensive is they take up too much room on the wafer. Rumor has it, not on any rumor site, they are switching the manufacture to .13 and on bigger wafers. Henceforth it would be cheaper. The server design is because of the surrounding chipsets not because of the processor. However, the chip packaging wouldn't be any cheaper unless they are made in huge numbers because these chips are HUGE! Even if they started manufacturing them with .13 and if these were put in a tower Mac, the power supply would still need to be increased by at least 50 Watts and the case redesigned for the CPU fan and supersize heatsink. A Mac with this chip would cost about $5K but it would sport 2 64-bit processors running at 1.6 GHz with 3 MBytes of on-chip L2 cache and probably a 4 MByte L3 cache. Of course OS X would have to be rewritten for 64-bit, but most UNIX OSes are, even Linux. I wonder if this is what they meant by OS X only computers ?