Apple Moving To G5s Next Year? 168
Rand Race writes: "Lowend Mac is reporting here that Apple is considering dropping the G4 on most of its line in favor of IBM's Altivec-less G5. The G5 would appear in early 2001 at speeds from 700Mhz to 1Ghz in single, dual, and quad setups. Speeds up to 2Ghz should be reached by 2002. Updated G3s (750Cx/G3e) at 533-666Mhz will be used in iMacs and iBooks (maybe a 666Mhz G5 iMac SE), Dual and Quad G4-500s in midrange machines, and G5s in high end machines (733,866, & 1Ghz), Powerbooks (733 & 850), and Cubes (866 & 1Ghz). Disclaimer; this is a rumour and we all know about Apple rumors..."
Update: 08/18 09:04 PM by CT : Several people noted that this is more then a rumor, its a blatant lie... they got very worked up about it too ;)
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:2)
Re:LOW END MAC TROLLED SLASHDOT!!! (Score:2)
(Emphasis added by me)
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:1)
blessings,
Re: (Score:1)
sigh... please read the pages you submit. (Score:5)
have a look at http://lowendmac.com/rumormill/about.shtml:
i hate it when i see something like this, but there's already a hundred posts going on about where are the numbers? and who is the source?
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
Re:There is no G4 chip (Score:1)
Don't correct people if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Benchmarks, where have you gone? (Score:1)
Oh, the G4 has really given Apple plenty of marketting trouble. People just love that megahertz number despite the fact that it is only one part of a fast machine. Apple has done a good job showing how the G4 boosted Photoshop performance, but I don't know if it's helped much else. Is there a more general set of benchmarks? Is there any other application that's sped up by the Altivec? Does anyone ever use Intel's MMX instructions?
I remember when we had MIPS, a reasonably good standard. Are any on the horizon?
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
As far as I know there is no such thing as a 'G5' used in IBM server and workstations. There is the POWER series of processors which are power hungry 64-bit processors and have very little to do with the low power embedded style processors that motorola produces. Look at RS/6000 Model F80 if you don't believe me.
Gotcha! (Score:5)
Re:a bit on the history of fast PPC chips (Score:1)
If you look a little more carefully at those press releases you will discover that chip would never have worked in any real system considering it acccually a implemented a subset of the required PPC instructions. It was a technology demo nothing else. IBM's up and comming POWER4 on the other hand is a real ghz processor but apple probably won't want to ship a processor designed for a server in the near future. If apple wanted 64-bit PPC's with fast memory subsystems they could have had them. Of course apple will have to give up that we don't need a fan attitude when their processors are designed for high power computing tasks.
Re:The G5 Roadmap (Score:1)
Are you refering to the actual silicon or to the instruction sets? there is a difference, wish i could remember the URL. The actual chip designs have nothing to ddo with the instruction set in the x86 line, however it has everything to do with the ppc line. since ppc's don't have a "micro core" to translate instructions to something that the processor actual uses, therefore x86 based chips can under go radical redesigns more easily the the ppc, IMHO this is causing the Mhz problems.
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
I don't understand why there is so much trouble with Altivec. The UltraSPARC, HP PA-RISC, Alpha, and MIPS processors all have SIMD units. Even the cheap embedded processors like the SH4 have integer and fp SIMD. I think Motorola was actually the last to add support. I doubt there's an inherent problem with Altivec. It's probably that Motorola's G4 design doesn't fabricate well.
Motorola has had a lot of trouble in the past with their designs. Many of their 64 bit designs (the 620 and 640) were scrapped because of manufacturing problems. I believe that the only surviving member, the 630, is what IBM calls the Power 4.
BTW, IBM doesn't use the G5 at all right now. It doesn't really exist yet. They use the Power 4. The G5 is Motorola's new 64 bit design.
Re:Apple needs rumours... (Score:1)
Dude, I think you read it wrong, or I wrote it wrong. What I'm asking is why Apple makes such a fuss over squelching rumours, not why /. makes such a fuss over rumours.
I, for one, love reading about the rumours. They make me want to see and buy the product even more. What I'm saying is Apple should (and probably does) know this and probably works it to build the hype.
--Calum
Re:apple's problem... (Score:3)
and speed is their biggest problem... they've been held at 500 MHz for almost a year now.
someones going to need to break out the lawyers.. (Score:1)
Why is this post still here? (Score:1)
Re:n o there's not (Score:1)
Correct. It was originally for a single HD. The space *below* the DVD bay is for a 3 1/2" removeable device.
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
And (Score:1)
sulli
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:2)
True, but I think that has more to do with the historical apple-version-lag than the usefulness of Altivec in speech recognition.
Re:Apple home gaming market is bleak. (Score:1)
BTW, Bungie did get sucked up by MS, but they have announced that Halo will be a simultaneous Mac/XBox release.
AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
Re:was it a gimmick after all? (Score:1)
The reason we don't see much benefit on Intel processors is because the implementation is seriously limited. MMX shares the same registers as the FPU because expanding the register set forces all operating systems to be updated to save extra registers on a context switch. Microsoft would have had to release new versions of Windows, and Intel didn't want to go that route. And the x86 FPU unit is stack based, which makes it hard to optimize in the first place. The only decent implementations were on processors with little software support to begin with, except for the G4. The only evidence we have of SIMD's advantages on the desktop is from Mac OS X. But that isn't released yet, so we don't all have first hand evidence.
And the reason that someone is backing away is because they can't manufacture their chip properly. In a situation like that, a company would rather say the feature is not that important than say their design was a failure.
Motorola doesn't appear to have faith! (Score:1)
Whether the story is for real or not, shouldn't really be the issue, what should be examined is whether such a move would make sense. While on the one hand the altivec does stuff differently from the MMX, IBM has probably got it right the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) approach as it simplifies on production and helps them concentrate on other aspects of the chip production. After all we are talking about a RISC chip, where the whole point was keeping out junk - just see where CISC has got Intel. Although the x86 line is still advancing, Intel realizes that at some point they are going to have to remove a lot of redundent instructions if they are going to reduce development times.
If Apple chucks altivec, and goes to someone whoe believes in the PPC, then I will be happy. Also since IBM is producing the PPC in large quantities, Apple may even be able to get some cheaper chips.
Re:Which English? (Score:1)
you're = contraction of "you" and "are"
And it's "grammar."
Dumbasses. Finish "grammer" school before you post next time.
--
What about Transmeta? & note about IBM (Score:2)
This is a completely serious question because I honestly do not know much about Crusoe. Would a Transmeta processor be plausible here, being that their architecture is supposed to emulate other processors well?
Apple is using it in it's consumer boxes, IBM in servers, & Motorola is suplying Apple while focusing on the embedded market.
BTW: IBM also has been manufacturing PowerPCS for Apple for the past several months, and is apparently doing a much better job of it than Motorola.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
We all know about apple rumors... (Score:1)
----------
Re:poor Apple... (Score:2)
Another Rumour (Score:1)
Re:The G5 Roadmap (Score:1)
AltiVec is a technology developed by Motorola. It's primary usage is for accelerated processing of stream data. It performs the same operation over and over on a stream of data. The main purpose for Motorola's development of AltiVec was to be of use in the embedded market, which is their primary cash source. Since IBM focuses mostly on the high-end market such as servers, this wouldn't be as useful for them. The specialized acceleration provided by AltiVec wouldn't provide as much benefit as raw generic processing power would.
It's somewhat unlikely that Apple would move to the IBM G5 for anything other than a high-end server architecture. It might show up in several workstations, but they've invested too much in AltiVec to make that transition. It's a lot more likely that they will use Motorola's G5 chip, possibly getting IBM to manufacture them.
IBM has a lot more experience working with the copper wiring process as well as Silicon-on-insulator. They're able to produce significantly better yields than Motorola, which is the cause of this entire problem.
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
The average consumer of Mac G4s is a graphic artist who is well aware of exactly what apps and plug-ins are Altivec enabled -- and Apple knows this.
Shut my mouth (Score:1)
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Re:Of course I'm serious... (Score:1)
I'd love to use linux all the time, but unfortunately, my addiction to Ultima Online, Diablo 2 and other games keeps me with a Win98 partion on my hard drive.
I don't know of a ton of apps that exist on the Mac but not in Win9x. When I bought my 8500AV it was specfically because the Adobe suite didn't exist for Wintel. It was a good setup, but now with the full Adobe suite running on Windows it's much stabler (in my experience). Macs lack of memory management made it a dangerous proposition to switch between Illustrator & Photshop, usually ending in bomb. For whatever reason even quitting one program and restarting the other didn't always work because the memory allocations got all fubarred.
Perhaps OS X and new hardware will solve Mac's reliability issues, but by then it will be too late. People like me that started with the original Macs, bought the first powerbooks (my 165c was suh-weet), and paid good money for the top end PowerPCs when they came out have simply given up on Apple. They cost alot and don't give you much more than a cool transluscent case and hardware upgrade headaches. I'll stick with Win98 and Mandrake for now on.
The OS wars will never be won. The different sides never see each others point of view. It's kind of like me understanding why people like that candy ass, do nothing Boba Fett.
duals & quads... (Score:1)
I wish Apple and IBM well!
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:1)
Its just a case of living and learning IMO.
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:1)
Re:apple's problem... (Score:1)
Which is exactly why the G4, comes with 3 Firewire ports (2 external, 1 internal), 2 USB, Gigabit ethernet, SVGA port, Audio out, enough room in the case for 7 more drives beyond the standard harddrive/DVD configuration, and still have 3 empty PCI slots.
Sounds pretty darn upgradeable to me.
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:2)
Marketing! Megahertz sells & Joe Q. Public doesn't know what Altivec is. All he reads is the numbers
The long arm of Apple (Score:1)
Re:duals & quads... (Score:1)
... Dual and Quad G4-500s in midrange machines, and G5s in high end machines
Note the quad G4. G4 = PPC7400, which includes an altivec.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re:Speaking of Apple rumors... (Score:2)
Slashdot =! Mac Rumor Site (Score:2)
Assorted rantings. (Score:2)
A) Why can't the RISC chips keep up? I thought RISC was supposed to help INCREASE clock speeds. Is it really that Intel and AMD have that much better manufacturing technology? Or is it some other part of the architecture that's holding it back. I mean the Alpha used to be the king of clock-speed, they hit 500MHz at the
B) Why the hell would Apple ditch Altivec? It's a GOOD idea. It's not just x86 that dabbles in these instruction extensions, the Alpha has something similar to Altivec and SSE. Given the fact that 3D is going to be so big, why ditch Altivec. It's perfect for multiplying matricies, which is basically what bottles 3D at the CPU end. Not to mention all the physics stuff that uses this. Seeing as SSE boosts performance by 70% in some cases, I don't think it is a good idea to dump SSE in favor of more clock speed. Also, Altivec shouldn't really affect clock-speed, should it? I mean the Alpha got to 700+MHz with it's vector instruction set, so why not the PPC.
C) Wouldn't an Alpha using IBM process technology be cool? Imagine a 1.5+GHz Alpha running on a
Re:What about Transmeta? & note about IBM (Score:2)
Re:a bit on the history of fast PPC chips (Score:2)
Re:a bit on the history of fast PPC chips (Score:2)
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
Disclaimer? Sue! (Score:1)
Yeah. Expect some people to get sued.
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
Coming Soon- the iMac SEvil @ 666MHz (Score:1)
http://lowendmac.com/rumormill/2k0818.html
You know things are wierd, when then the fake rumors start sounding
good, if not hilarious.
Ah yes, the iMac SEvil @ 666MHz available in Black with Red Flames
or the Bill Gates model with limbo blue clouds motif.
Silly silly silly (Score:1)
Can't /. come up with any *real* material about Macs and Apple
technologies to discuss? How about this
piece [stepwise.com]for starters?
Re:multi-processor machines and the G5 (Score:1)
The G4e, G4+ and 7400+ are all the same thing known by different names. This is not a multi-core chip, but a processor that adds several enhancements to the G4. For example, it deepens the pipelines allowing for higher clock speeds, it adds extra AltiVec units to further increase AltiVec speed enhancements and adds an extra integer unit. The G4+ is supposed to be in test production right now, but there is no telling when it will actually be available. I think Motorola has turn to the G4+ in the hopes that it will save them from their follies with the G4. The original design had several flaws that have restricted the clock speed and even with all of Motorola's work to correct the problems, they are still having trouble.
Re:You're a genius. (Score:1)
"Many a true word spoken in jest".
M.
Re:There is no G4 chip (Score:1)
the PPC 7400 (more popularly known as the G4, granted)
and the apple box bearing its name is known as the
G4 only by virtue of the 7400's codename (which
stuck...)
it means (Score:1)
You Have Lost
Have A Nice Day
BTW: you probably don't want to click the other poster's link
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
AMD (Score:1)
Re:apple's problem... (Score:1)
sorta true, but really not (Score:1)
But it's really not.
Mac OS X, which will be Apple's next gen operating system, with all the goodies like Quartz, Aqua, and the Darwin open-source foundation layer, and is probably going to go into beta within the next month or so (with a promised final version delivery by Jan 01), WILL support multiple processors. Heck, check out the Darwin web site [apple.com] to see the kernel source itself. Heck, Apple's high end machines are now all multiprocessor G4's, and even the classic Mac OS (8 and 9 at least) support a bastardized version of multiprocessor support - so surely the Mach microkerneled, BSD based Mac OS X can handle more than 1 processor.
Steve's on the hotline to his lawyers... (Score:1)
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel/Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
Re:apple's problem... (Score:1)
So what ever happened to the two Firewire ports and the three PCI slots???
There's tons of room for more 3 1/2" media devices. All single-drive machines have at least 2 more bays open at the bottom of the machine. There's also a blank 51/4" bay at the top of the machine (if you don't have Zip)
Hmm... possible Apple convert (Score:2)
I might have to put my dreams for a dual athlon on the back burner for a quad G5.
But as the people at work asked me when I announced this... what would you compute on this?
I smiled and said "Netscape."
And after some thought... I added "ripping mp3s".
See... a machine like this will not be wasted.
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:1)
This rumor has some good logic behind it, truth on the other hand is arguable. Apple release the dual G4 boxes to compete in the Mhz war. It was also a cry to Motorolla to stop screwing around. The problem with the AIM alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorolla) is that they are contractually locked into non-competeing clock speeds. Meaning IBM can't release a G4 that is a ton faster than Mot'sdue to better development. But IBM can release a new version. So the G5 looks like a great chip, it's faster, and it is what Apple wants.
Re:Speaking of Apple rumors... (Score:1)
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:1)
The G4 is apparently (maybe by some antiquated standard) a supercomputer. That standard measures floating point opps/sec, but most people don't need a lot of floating point performance - a more responsive Quake game comes from improved integer performance. They'd be switching from a chip optimized for floating point to one that ramps up in clock speed better, for more integer performance.
The article claimed that they were going to leave the G4's in dual and quad processor boxes only - basically targetting them at people who are actually going to be seeing the performance boost that Altivec would give.
Re:The G5 Roadmap (Score:1)
Have a look at http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,233
Re:a bit on the history of fast PPC chips (Score:1)
Re:AltiVec-less? (Score:2)
4 32-bit FP numbers
4 32 bit integers
8 16 bit integers
8 16 bit "pixels" (see below)
16 8 bit integers
I believe most if not all operations are orthogonal, meaning that an operation that you can perform on one of the above data types can be expected to be able to be performed on the others as well. The pixel data type is one gears towards video processing. It's a 16 bit number containing 5 bits for each of 3 colors and one alpha bit. The difference is that overflow and underflow is handled by color. If you are adding two pixels together, and there is overflow in one or more of the color values, you don't want wraparound or bits floating over into the next field. You want the color in question to max out.
Altivec is not really FP biased at all.
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:2)
Re:What about Transmeta? & note about IBM (Score:2)
Really the only sales feature of the Transmeta products (aside from their inherent technical wizardry) is the ability to emulate other CPU's (albiet slower) in a low-power design. You won't ever see a Transmeta chip in anything other then a mobile platform.
As to IBM making consumer PowerPC'; Yes, IBM has been manufacturing PowerPCs for Apple under license from Motorola (it's Motorola's design they're using) but not doing any design/development work on them - they're just another outsourced product in the plant along with the Transmeta chips (same plant.)
Re:Which English? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot =! Mac Rumor Site (Score:3)
Considering that this was not actually a mac rumor, but was instead a made up story, your subject fits quite well!
Kevin Fox
The G5 Roadmap (Score:3)
http://www.maccentral.com/news/9909/24.g5.shtml
http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC/overview/newroad
As you'll notice, NOWHERE does it say that Motorola is removing Altivec in future chips.
The lag in processor speed is due to several factors. First, the G4 chip is not very scalable mhz-wise due to its shallow pipeline. IBM seems to have overcome this, however legal agreements are preventing IBM from producing the chip without Motorola's blessing. Future PPC designs include deeper pipelines to make scaling to higher mhz easier.
At first, IBM was refusing to add altivec, wanting to focus on mhz instead with the ppc line. What has resulted is that IBM is simply more prepared to produce faster chips that Motorola right now.
In all, its really a shame that this fiasco has occured. The PPC has a much cleaner design than the x86 based chips. Its a marketing miracle that Apple hasn't been held back by this. (What looks faster? Bodini blue or beige?
Re:LOW END MAC TROLLED SLASHDOT!!! (Score:2)
No marketing department in the Christian(and maybe elsewhere) world would *EVER* market a processor as 666 Mhz.
Apple home gaming market is bleak. (Score:2)
Now IANAMU, but I am pretty sure that the gaming market for the Mac is just about dead. The only really good Mac gaming company (Bungie) sold to Microsoft to develop for the X-box instead. I would not get a Mac unless I had a specific purpose and a PC cannot do it.
Re:Apple == Crap (to me) (Score:2)
Apple's success in the 3D gaming market will rest largely on how ATI's 3D cards perform. That's been the bottleneck in the past. The Radeon looks good but obviously ATI and Apple are on thin ice right now.
I've never had a problem with them in terms of hardware or compatibility. I never had to do much tinkering with the networking and worked just fine as a workstation in a heterogenous environment (Win/Mac/*ix). I never had to make them work in en environment larger than 20 computers however. I do despise their OS though. OS X looks promissing if they can speed it up a ton.
Re:devilish (Score:2)
What color do you expect the box to come in?
Charred black?
Red-hot?
Melted-skin pink?
And the tag line for the machine...
Where would you like to go... for eterinity?
Next thing ya know, they will have that little FreeBSD imp as a mascot.
Apple Damien (Score:2)
(1) soul + 4.95 shipping?
And everyone gives Microsoft/Intel crap for being evil?
-----
Don't forget HP. (Score:2)
I forget which PA-RISC they first did this with, but they redesigned parts of the integer unit so that it could do packed arithmetic (a la MMX) at a 0% increase in die size. They literally squeezed the extra logic into the corners of the existing die frame. Pretty impressive. Sure, it only sped up a few functions (MPEG decompression was the biggie), but they essentially got it for free. Conservative, but a definite win.
On the opposite extreme lies Alti-Vec. Alti-Vec is basically an entire vector processor sitting next to the original PowerPC core. It added 50% to the die size of the G4. 50%! It's certainly more capable than what HP or the others implemented, but Motorola paid the price. It's quite possible that they have decided the multimedia unit wasn't worth that much silicon, and have gone a different route with their next generation.
For the curious, Intel's original MMX unit increased the die size of the classic Pentium by about 5%. They're more recent extensions no doubt add more, but I think you can see that HP and Intel took a more conservative approach to "accelerating" multimedia with specialized SIMD units.
--Lenny
Rumour litmus test (Score:5)
A: See if Apple sues.
Problem is with Motorola, not AltiVec (Score:2)
I use a G4 at work, and AltiVec is *very* nice for certain tasks. SoundJam MP takes advantage of it, and can encode MP3s at up t 10x (haven't verified that myself). AltiVec is also used for some of the cool effects in Aqua (like maybe the "Genie" effect).
IANAHE (I Am Not A Hardware Engineer), but I don't see why a few vector processing units would prevent a chip from reaching speeds > 500 MHz. If only IBM and Motorola would pool their technology, we might see 1GHz G5s with AltiVec soon... Maybe Jobs will kick their respective asses a bit, and it will happen...
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:2)
But as others have mentioned you need to have compiled for it or hand tweaked the assembly. Not a big deal. They are good chips and Altivec would appear to blow the snot out of Intels SIMD offerings.
So yes, Altivec is a good move. It's definately a performance enhancer. Unless they keep switching the architecture every year it can't hurt them.
Could we have more numbers in the story please? (Score:2)
--
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:2)
As for whether AltiVec was a bad decision, I'm not an expert on the subject but the impression I've gotten is more that Moto is incompetent than that AltiVec fundamentally limits clock speeds. There are rumors that IBM could produce faster G4's if they wanted to but their contracts with Moto prevents them from doing so without Moto's permission. This is touched on briefly in the article. If this rumor is true, it my represent a problem of petty bickering rather than a technological failing of AltiVec.
Re:LOW END MAC TROLLED SLASHDOT!!! (Score:2)
*sigh* I don't know what constitutes as trolling anymore. bummer. (in response to my previous post's moderation).
Altivec-less? (Score:2)
Check out one of their other "rumors" (Score:3)
Alternate Processors (Score:2)
With that aside what ARE the alternative CPU options for Apple?
PowerPC is doing OK as an architecture. Apple is using it in it's consumer boxes, IBM in servers, & Motorola is suplying Apple while focusing on the embedded market.
Unfortunately there are strains on the relationship. Apple honked-off Motorola by shelving the 3rd party Mac licensing program abruptly and stiffing Motorola with a many-million dollar inventory of unusable motherboards(Apple had good reason to shelve the program ASAP but it still screwed Motorola.) On the other hand they committed to Motorola as their supplier when Motorola developed the AltiVec material. IBM politely said no-thank-you to licensing the AltiVec as it really doesn't apply to their products and would likely just get in the way of their own evolution plans for PowerPC. They've all committed to continuing the collaboration and at that level it seems to be doing well though the PowerPC "vision" seems to have succumbed to more pragmatic goals.
The problem for Apple is that the PowerPC + AltiVec from Motorola is having trouble ramping up in speed. Apple has tried to fight the percieved speed discrepancy by pointing out that a PowerPC at some speed actually equals an x86 running at a some greater speed. All agree this is more or less true but the same as the Millenium doesn't start 'till next year no-one cares: they want comparable CPU speeds.
Apple finally replied by shipping multiple CPU's. These work fine under MacOS 9 and will do great under MacOS X when it ships but while saying 2x500 = 1000 it still isn't really the same when it comes to bragging.
What makes the whole thing even more ironic for all of the psuedo-knowledgable's pointing out that two CPUs aren't really twice as fast they're all ignoring there are far more fundamental issues like bus bandwidth & memory architecture that hobble Apple, at least until it's next-gen UMA2 motherboard series finally ship in a presumed few months.
So, what are the other choices?
Well, there have been rumors forever of Apple's MacOS-v7/8-on-x86 inhouse projects (claimed name "StarTrek".) With the move to MacOS X these now are realistic as NextStep has run on several platforms already including x86. Indeed the aborted Rhapsody strategy was actually released on x86 and the MacOS-core Darwin project is freely downloadable for x86. It wouldn't be terribly difficult for Apple to move all of MacOS X over to x86 though it would likely require abandoning all of the backwards MacOS compatability (unless something could be salvaged from the rumored "StarTrek" project.)
Of course at that point Apple would only be selling a custom version of Unix on custom x86 boxes to the consumer market and it's doubtefull Apple could make much of a go of that in today's market.
Next choice? Well, go to a third horse. Compaq now has the Alpha processor and it's still a speed demon and shows no signs of slowing down. There are rumors of Apple having an internal team tracking MacOS X but on Alpha. NextStep ran on Alpha so this sounds reasonable and certainly gives Apple some leverage with Motorola. The advantage of Alpha would be a screaming processor but not x86 as so to differentiate themselves.
This would put Apple in the position of selling a custom version of Unix on custom Alpha boxes to the consumer market and this might be doable, particularly if Apple pursues a strategy of selling PowerPC or Alpha CPU's in their boxes.
Now, there is an interesting rumor to discuss.
Re:devilish (Score:3)
But hey, its Insanely Different(tm)..
G5 is not a PowerPC processor. (Score:3)
IBM -does- have some sexy successors to the 750 processor (the "G3" in Apple marketing speak) and these will probably make it into future iMacs and Powerbooks. I'm more interested in their upcoming "7500+" line, which is a G4 that can be produced with a clock of 750mhz and 1ghz...we'll still have to wait until MacWorld San Francisco to see them tho.
SoupIsGood Food
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:2)
Well, take a look at how much more efficient it is [apple.com] on Intel's own DSP benchmarks. Also check out the inimitable David Every's pretty good review [mackido.com] of AltiVec vs. KNI.
Boils down to, you want to do DSP stuff, AltiVec kicks serious ass, especially if you go to the trouble to understand how to restructure your algorithms to take advantage of it. You don't, well, it's not of any real great use then.
For Photoshop users, video compressors, sound filterers, stuff like that, it's a pretty damned big win. Errrr
Re:What? (Score:2)
Where Altivec doesn't help is in straightforward integer operations or logic operations, such as the code behind a device driver. And of course it doesn't help with programs that haven't been compiled for Altivec...
Low End Mac (Score:2)
IBM vs Motorolla (Score:2)
Apple's in a sticky situation... they want Altivec because it speeds things up, but they need higher clock rates to compete with AMD and Intel. Motorolla hasn't been able to get high clock rates and the G4 has been stuck at 500 MHz for a year.
It's too bad because the G4 looked so promising, but Moto has been able to deliver to all the hype.
LOW END MAC TROLLED SLASHDOT!!! (Score:5)
This rumor was posted on LEM by "Anne Onymus". If you bothered to check the other "rumors" from the same writer, you would have noticed that Low End Mac's "Rumor Mill" is a PARODY SITE!!!
Dan Knight, publisher of LEM, does not take Apple rumors seriously, and under the name Anne Onymous he pokes fun at the rumor sites on a fairly regular basis.
In other words, YHBT YHL HAND.
In yer face, Slashdot editors! (Hehehe)
Re:Altivec-less? (Score:2)
On the other hand my distributed net keyrate jumped when I switched one of the clients from a G3/400 to a G4/400 with altivec. The DNEC client has a portion that was written in assembly for Altivec.
I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but unless I learn of a performance impedement I don't have a problem with it.
LK
a bit on the history of fast PPC chips (Score:2)
For those of you that have fogotten, IBM demonstrated a PowerPC chip running at 1 Ghz way back in 1998 (the chip ran at 1 GHz when cooled to 25 degrees Celcius, at room temperature it ran just at just under 500 MHz). Check out CNET's take on the event: IBM joins the 1,000-MHz club [cnet.com].
The 1 Ghz PowerPC IBM demonstrated way back in 1998 was partially hand tooled. This chip broke many of the processes IBM uses to automate production of the PowerPC. Check outwhat the EE Times said about the chip at the time: IBM's 1-GHz processor taxes current EDA tools [eetimes.com].
More recently, TechWeb states some of IBM's plans for the PowerPC: IBM Preps SOI-Based PowerPCs [techweb.com].
To see what is available today, and what is coming in the short term future, look at IBM's product page for the PowerPC at: http://www.chips.ibm.com/products/powerp c/ [ibm.com].
IBM intends to have out 700MHz PowerPCs for its RS/6000 line by early next year for its RS/6000 line. It would make very little sense for Apple to not start shoving these into new Macs when they become available.
IBM has had very little trouble scaling the PPC up as it needs to for its line of servers. I really wonder why Motorola seems to be having so much trouble in the MHz race.
OTOH, I remember 3rd party benchmarks that showed a Motorola PPC at 350 MHz smoking an Intel x86 at 500 MHz at Photoshop. And this was back in the day when x86 had MMX and PPC had no Alti-vec. FYI, the MMX instructions allowed the Intel box (running NT) to perform one or two tests slightly faster than the Apple box running Mac OS. Given this type of history, I can see Motorola being arrogant enough to think it doesn't need to keep up the MHz. But its time for Motorola to wake up and smell the coffee.
On a related note, there is a rumor that Palm is going to drop the 68k Motorola series in favor of the StrongARM series mostly because of the MHz.
Motorola better get some MHz action in a hurry. Despite an overall faster chip, eventually a double/triple clock speed advantage will catch up. I doubt a 1GHz T-Bird does much slower than a .5 GHz PPC, especially given Apple's slower bus.
Re:Which English? (Score:2)
It's "you're" - short for "you are" - not "your". You wrote:
"Hey, your in America..." which, in the context of a grammar correction message, is just sad.
Credibility ? Possibly.... (Score:4)
Apple have been unable to keep up in the MHz race. Whilst those of us in the know can preach that it's not a real comparison to go on about MHz, the lay-person sees these numbers and really does equate these with speed - meaning that Apple starts to lose out in the consumer market because Joe Consumer thinks that a 500Mhz G4 is slower than say, a 600Mhz Pentium (which isn't the case).
Sales of iMacs (apparently) have started to flag, and Apple has received criticism that it isn't updating the processors in the range quick enough, which is indeed true. Some haven't been updated for about nine months. The production problems behind Motorolas G4, and the fact they can't seem to increase the speed that quickly have really been problematic - no doubt spurring on the decision by Apple to plump for IBM, who seem to have much better processor fabrication techniques.
So - what we'll probably see is a bit of spin from an Apple show about how they've put a funky newer processor in the iMacs and that they've nearly doubled the clock speed. Those in the know again will realise that this doesn't mean the machine is running twice as quick, but the consumer will be bought over... and iMac sales will probably pick up again. Apple has to do it to stop it's flagship machine (i.e. the machine that picked it up out of the gutter) from falling off it's mast.
M.