G5's In January

[Telomar]

Originally posted by ftaok
BTW, if Apple does use a G5 from Moto, it would be a 7xxx chip. You see, Motorola's naming convention dictates that the 2nd number is the "G" number. Therefore, a G5 would be 75xx. Take a look at the roadmap.

The G3s were 75x or 74x so no Motorola doesn't need to call it 75xx. They can name their chips whatever they please.

There really is no science to model numbers except for the sake of identification. You can create conventions to make it easier for others to follow and understand but sometimes the marketing takes over and conventions go out the door.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by applemacdude
Hey im just 13. My friend works an apple and i dont to see him that much like once every 2 months. so shut up already

Hey this is America, even 13 year olds can be tried and convicted as adults.

And since the judge seems to be asleep right now, watch out for those big rocks being thrown from the jury box.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Telomar
The G3s were 75x or 74x so no Motorola doesn't need to call it 75xx. They can name their chips whatever they please.

There really is no science to model numbers except for the sake of identification. You can create conventions to make it easier for others to follow and understand but sometimes the marketing takes over and conventions go out the door.

That's true, but Moto has a listed naming convention for people to use. It's just that a lot of posters put out stuff like "the 7500 isn't a true G5" when in fact they have no idea what a G5 really is. Sure, Moto could change the convention, but right now, a 75xx chip would be a G5.

 

[Inhale420]

lol, it's funny how you're all taking this thread seriously.

 

[Shrek]

Originally posted by e-coli
heck, they don't even have a manufacturer nailed down as far as we know.

Um, the IBM Power4 maybe? Or Motorola's 0.9 micron technology?

 

[daijones]

Originally posted by ftaok
That's true, but Moto has a listed naming convention for people to use. It's just that a lot of posters put out stuff like "the 7500 isn't a true G5" when in fact they have no idea what a G5 really is. Sure, Moto could change the convention, but right now, a 75xx chip would be a G5.

Last time I saw the motorola road map, the 75xx wasn't anywhere on it. The G4 is shown as 74xx, and the G5 as 85xx. The other notable convention is that the 7yyy processors are marked as desktop processors, while the 8yyy processors are marked as communication processors. Meanwhile, the key difference between G4 and G5 seems to be the possibility of either 32- or 64-bit on the G5 (G4 is 32-bit only), and the G5 has a new bus and rapidIO.

This suggests two things. Firstly, the moto road map doesn't envisage a desktop G5. Second, if the 7500 does exist, then moto/Apple could call it whatever generation they want. The conventions noted above suggested that the 7 in the first place implies a desktop processor, and the 5 in the second place implies a G5. Again, if the 7500 exists, it suggests to me either that moto had a late change of heart and decided to produce a desktop G5 after all, or that Apple persuaded them not to include the desktop G5 on the roadmap. The first possibility might explain the delays; the second possibility would be entirely true to form for Apple.

The 7500 rumours suggest that it's a 32-bit chip with rapidIO based on the book-E architecture. This sounds a lot like a 32-bit G5 to me.

It might be worth noting that the G5 is available in the form of the 8560. Sadly, this is for embedded applications, but it shows that moto can put the technology on a chip if it wants to. It's also worth noting that the moto roadmap includes the G6, carrying the 86xx designation. This suggests that the G6 is also planned for embedded applications only. Time for Apple to go IBM?

 

[daijones]

IBM roadmap

For purposes of comparison, here's the IBM roadmap for PPC. The second arrow down, "1GHz+", describes a chip that is multicore superscalar, SMP capable, with integrated SIMD (vector-processing, like AltiVec), with rapidIO. This sounds like both the new chip IBM's announcing next month, and like what we'd expect in a G5. It's introduction seems to coincide with the use of low-K dielectrics: precisely what the new Fishkill plant is designed to produce, with full production intended for the end of the year. An interesting set of coincidences.

(BTW, I've posted similar comments on a previous forum: apologies for repetition)

 

[mrMahann]

non-conformist

as far as football fans go, raider fans are probably lesser conformist, or at least used to be. but, really, are any NFL fans really non-conformists?

just got a dualie533, bought it used. it does all i need as fast as i need it. no longer surfing on the SuSE machine; mozilla is plenty fast. and, it can run postgreSQL, apache and now oracle.

so, altho for most people the mac is plenty fast, to grow as a platform, we need cred some way, and the current measure that matters is processor speed. of course, by that time barium or whatever processor intel is going to have (banias) will be out and intel'll be using some other measure than MHz. but, people are still gonna use MHz for a bit, and having such low numbers matters, and in negative way, no matter what anyone says about the MHz myth. yeah, its real, but it just doesn't matter to the masses.

and, i WATCH BOTH MY DUAL PROCESSORS BEING USED as i have lotsa programs open and lotsa processes going. sometimes they jump up, but mostly just hang 20-50%.

anyway, i'm a libertarian, play rugby, hate golf, resent MLB and NFL, ex marine and usually vote demo. and, for prez i voted green and my vote certainly counted. my state MD goes dem (and ALL the electoral votes go to the state's winner), so casting a vote for a 3rd party is a protest against how lame of candidates we had while safely not contributing to the heinous dubya/cheney "big biz lackey" administration.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ftaok
And what constitutes a "true G5"? 64-bit? HyperTransport? What?

The truth is, the G5 is whatever Apple (or Moto) calls it.

True. But, say Apple takes a "modestly improved" G4 and calls it a G5. We should not, then, be expecting a G6 for a few years, right? Pretty much kills all hope of a truly revolutionary processor coming out of Apple for the next few years.

 

[xelterran]

Moto's g5 says it supports backwards compatability, does this mean that it can run both 32 and 64bit apps?

 

[barkmonster]

It's unrealistic for apple to be updating the towers in january.

That would give the 1.25Ghz model a 3 month shelf life, why would they do that ?

It makes no sense at all and I doubt we'll see new models till february or march of 2003 simply because the current range wouldn't have been out very long.

 

[szark]

Originally posted by daijones
Last time I saw the motorola road map, the 75xx wasn't anywhere on it. The G4 is shown as 74xx, and the G5 as 85xx.

The 7500 was on a previous version of the roadmap, still available on Motorola's website here .

 

[dongmin]

Originally posted by szark


The 7500 was on a previous version of the roadmap, still available on Motorola's website here .

how old is that roadmap? Cuz it shows the G4 starting at 0.15 micron process. As far as I know the G4s been stuck at 0.18.

I offer two theories as to why no mention of the 75xx line on the new roadmap:

1. Apple doesn't want Moto to reveal anything about future processors.

2. Moto has completely shifted their emphasis from PC uses to embedded uses.

Being an optimist, I'm leaning towards theory #1. I think we'd have heard more about Moto's change in direction if it was the second case.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by dongmin


how old is that roadmap? Cuz it shows the G4 starting at 0.15 micron process. As far as I know the G4s been stuck at 0.18.

I offer two theories as to why no mention of the 75xx line on the new roadmap:

1. Apple doesn't want Moto to reveal anything about future processors.

2. Moto has completely shifted their emphasis from PC uses to embedded uses.

Being an optimist, I'm leaning towards theory #1. I think we'd have heard more about Moto's change in direction if it was the second case.

BINGO on #1. That's standard operating procedure at Apple. Remember when the Apollo G4's came out earlier this year? Moto actually announced the chips before Apple announced the new PowerMacs. Thing is, Moto made sure not to name Apple as a user.

After Apple announced the PowerMacs, Moto issued another press release stating that the Apollos were also used for desktop applications. When asked about not issuing that info earlier, the Motorola rep said that they didn't want to steal Apple's thunder.

So if Moto does have a 75xx chip, I suspect that it's Apple that's keeping it under wraps.

 

[mrMahann]

Originally posted by barkmonster
It's unrealistic for apple to be updating the towers in january.

That would give the 1.25Ghz model a 3 month shelf life, why would they do that ?

altho i don't think they'll update it, one could argue that this is a "yikes II" w/ similar short lifespan.

as you may recall, "yikes" was a stopgap model as well, essentially w/ a g4 put on the previous g3 momboard.

G4/350 introduced 1999.10.13 at US$1,599; discontinued 1999.12.02
G4/400 introduced 1999.08.31 at US$1,599; discontinued 1999.10.13

<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=43111>

 

[arn]

Political discussion moved

 

[KingArthur]

Although I have not read all of the messages in this thread, the last few indicate that you guys have not considered this. Motorola has already developed the G5 processor. It just is not economical to work hard on a G5 when it will solely be used for Apple. The majority of their processor sales are G4s used in cell phones and other mobile products. Until clients want more secure encryption of things, the G5 has little use. That G5's only advantage other than a faster processor is that it can process much larger numbers (twice that of standard 32bit processors). That can make for a much more secure encryption code. Motorola sees not the need for this, so we will not see the G5 focused on until then. IBM is our best bet.

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by KingArthur
Although I have not read all of the messages in this thread, the last few indicate that you guys have not considered this. Motorola has already developed the G5 processor. It just is not economical to work hard on a G5 when it will solely be used for Apple. The majority of their processor sales are G4s used in cell phones and other mobile products. Until clients want more secure encryption of things, the G5 has little use. That G5's only advantage other than a faster processor is that it can process much larger numbers (twice that of standard 32bit processors). That can make for a much more secure encryption code. Motorola sees not the need for this, so we will not see the G5 focused on until then. IBM is our best bet.

huh??!?!

Motorola has already shipped the G5. They're known as the 8540 and the 8560. Yes, these chips weren't designed for Apple (a 75xx would be the G5 for Apple). I don't understand your point.

BTW, the G4's aren't going into cell phones and "other mobile products". They're too expensive and just plain overkill. G4's are being used for communication routers and switchers along with Macs. Moto has other chip lines that go into celly's and pda's.

 

[KingArthur]

Sorry, I meant that they go into their massive mobile phone operations (as you said routers etc.). My point was that on the previous posts, the people were talking like the G5 is still under development. I wanted to make the point that it is already available, just Moto won't work on it b/c it doesn't meet their economical plans (Moto is in enough heat on WallStreet as it is).

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by KingArthur
.... (Moto is in enough heat on WallStreet as it is).

Exactly how would selling G5s to Apple hurt Motorola on Wall Street?

 

[ftaok]

Originally posted by MisterMe
Exactly how would selling G5s to Apple hurt Motorola on Wall Street?

Selling G5's to Apple could hurt Moto if it would take "significant" re-tooling to get the current G5 (8560) into a form that could work on a Mac. It could be a situation where Apple wouldn't be buying enough G5s from Moto to warrant that kind of investment.

The last I saw, Apple's market share was about 4%. If getting the 8560 to work on a Mac costs Motorola a lot of money, then it's likely that Moto wouldn't do it. It's a ROI thing.

 

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by barkmonster
It's unrealistic for apple to be updating the towers in january.

That would give the 1.25Ghz model a 3 month shelf life, why would they do that ?

It makes no sense at all and I doubt we'll see new models till february or march of 2003 simply because the current range wouldn't have been out very long.

Well didnt the first pci G4's had a short life?
like 3 months. Immediately after that the agp models came out.
I hope those new G4's have a short life span and all you guys will be "yikesed" when the G5 comes out. sorry hehe but I still hope so.
hell I was yikesed when that thing came out. im still stuck with it. I need a new mac.

 

[szark]

Originally posted by dongmin
how old is that roadmap? Cuz it shows the G4 starting at 0.15 micron process. As far as I know the G4s been stuck at 0.18.

The one I referenced seems to have a date of 5/2000, which is pretty old.

The "current" color roadmap above (which also lists the G4 starting at 0.15 micron) has a last modification date of 11/30/2001.

 

[scem0]

I think that we can expect new powermacs in Jan, because it sounded like it at MW Paris, and the new powermacs are a letdown, and apple doesnt like to let down its customers.

 

[FattyMembrane]

these g5 threads are never good news (i've seen about 3 years of them on different forums), but what does not help matters at this point in time are the conflicting motives and messges that we seem to be receiving from the industry.

1. New powermac cases are obviously overpowered and overcooled.
2. G4 is way behind in clock speed and news of ibm power4 is tempting mac users everywhere
3. any date within the feb/march 2003 range would be the requisite 6 month range for introducing a new tower.
BUT...
1. would apple really launch a huge "switch" campaign just to trounce all of the newbies' machines and alienate them?
2. the marklar project is now well-known and would be too large an expenditure of resources just for "fun" or a "backup".

i hope (as i'm sure we all do) that apple can pull off some kind of miracle within the next year (something far more impressive than the debut of the gforce4ti). as i said before, these g5 rumors have been around for years and if apple does not take the lead in pushing consumer computing to its limits, we're in for trouble. there are lots of people still disgruntled about the switch to osx, and the widening of the mhz gap will only make matters worse.
EDIT: i'm surprised that no one has brought up the g5 sphere, that always seems to get posted about every 3 months