G6 Rumors

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Dunepilot
Yes, it does all come down to the economics of it. However, without us knowing the per-chip price of the 970, it'll be difficult to extrapolate what we can expect from Apple in terms of G5 (and later, G6) rollout, and, for that matter, dropping the G3 and the G4. Also, where will the dual-processor/dual-core strategy go? I for one won't be buying another single-processor machine because I love duals so much.

The per-chip cost is generally the cost of manufacturing, plus money to cover R&D, plus the profit margin.

It costs next to nothing to manufacture at Fishkill. Building Fishkill was expensive, but IBM was doing that for IBM reasons, not for Apple reasons. It's another market for IBM (manufacturing everyone else's chips). R&D on the 970 and its successsors was probably a fair amount. But if Apple orders tho 970 in enough volume to cover the entire product line, they can probably get the processors on the cheap.

Remember, IBM and Apple are partners here. It's not like the Dark Side, where Intel produces processors and sells them at a set price.

Originally posted by jaedreth
Now even though technically they named the 970 the PowerPC 970, it *isn't* PowerPC. But it isn't Power either. It's a Power derivative with PowerPC like features. So technically it should be just called the 970, which we've been calling it.

PowerPC is, by definition, a version of the POWER architecture scaled down to the personal computer. Hence the name.

The 970 is a version of the POWER architecture, scaled down to the personal computer. It's not the same as past PowerPC's, but it's still a PowerPC

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
When the iMacs were announced in May 1998, there was a Power Mac G3 at 233 MHz. The iMacs were released in August. So the iMac gets the low end Power Mac processor of 3 months ago

Uh... The Power Mac G3 was released in November of 1997. The iMac was released in August of 1998 (I was at one of the release parties ). Yes, the iMac had the same chip as the low-end Power Mac, but it was the Power Mac that was released nine months earlier. And, the bottom end Power Mac was bumped up to 300MHz the following January (at which point the iMac was bumped up to 266MHz).

Now, I will grant that there is no simple delay of 'one year', or something similar. I'm just trying to make the point that from the time that the iMac was released, more often than not there has been more of a difference in processors than just being the equivalent of the bottom end Power Mac. So, I think that saying that this is Apple's goal is premature, at best. It may be, but it may not be.

If Apple can get a G4 class chip from IBM (750VX, aka Mohave) for less than the 970 costs, there may well be incentive for them to maintain a two tier processor structure. However, there is far too much in this situation that we don't know for us to really make even educated guesses.

 

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by Snowy_River

If Apple can get a G4 class chip from IBM (750VX, aka Mohave) for less than the 970 costs, there may well be incentive for them to maintain a two tier processor structure. However, there is far too much in this situation that we don't know for us to really make even educated guesses.

...and when has that ever stopped anyone on this message board????

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Dunepilot
...and when has that ever stopped anyone on this message board????

LOL...

Too true...

(Myself included!)

 

[jaedreth]

Unfounded Speculation (more of the same)

So for now, the desktop gets G5, iMac and PowerBook are stuck with MotoSucka's G4, and the iBooks with G3's.

Next I see the iMacs and PowerBooks getting lower end G5's.

At the same time, if not before, iBooks getting better G3's.

When that is finished, G4 will be out of the product line, and Motorola will be essentially out.

Then will come the wonderful G5/G6 980 rev, and the PowerMac and XServe will get this first.

Then later the PowerBook G5 will get the lower end of these new processors.

The iBooks will be brought up to G5 then, lower end than the iMacs, but same range as eMacs.

Then Apple can start working on making that 64 bit OS

But keep in mind, I don't forsee this cycle completing until a year after the release of the supposed 980.

Again, just how I think things might unfold.

Jaedreth

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Unfounded Speculation (more of the same)

Originally posted by jaedreth
When that is finished, G4 will be out of the product line

Well, unless Mohave is going to be considered a G4 from IBM. Then we may see the G4 for a while longer, just not from Moto.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

I'm not sure I buy into Mohave. I mean, it'll take just as long as it will to get the 970 down to 90 nm by all probablity, so why bother?

 

[dragula53]

diesel

heh.

you can actually put a match out in diesel.

it would be more effective of an analogy if you had said gasoline.

I will go take my nitpicking self somewhere else

 

[Sun Baked]

Ooops, Look's like the quote was burried in the wrong doc.

 

[jaedreth]

Deisel, Gasoline

Actually, you can put a match out in gasoline too. Just under certain conditions. If you're in a room with a lower temperature, and low humidity, you quickly drop the lit match in, it will extinguish. Gasoline lights off of its vapors, not off the actual liquid. The ignighted vapors make the liquid burn.

So if there are no vapors, it won't catch fire.

Jaedreth

 

[Jagga]

??G3

Um...
BrandonRP0123
Actually the G3 900Mhz has been either sitting in stockpile in IBM's coffers for almost 1 year 3 months, or been shipping as upgrade cards to 3rd party manufacturers. I remember reading an article back in 2001 on Maccentral about IBM's announcement of the 900Mhz G3 acheivement.....

which brings me to

Snowy River's comment....

If Apple can get a G4 class chip from IBM (750VX, aka Mohave) for less than the 970 costs, there may well be incentive for them to maintain a two tier processor structure.

Unfortunately regarding the G3 900Mhz, because of the deal with Motorola and Apple, IBM wasn't able to initially sell it directly to Apple. Obviously now that has changed. However Motorola still holds a tight leash on the "G4" chip that doesn't even allow IBM to produce it "until" that exclusive supply/production contract ends between Motorola & Apple. This is hugely unfortunate to all of Apple's customers.......remember Mr. Jobs public announcement for Motorola unable to keep up with the original demand of the G4 (400, 450, 500Mhz); which resulted in Motorola's hugely slow development of the G4 chip to current date??!!!!! I do hope that this doesn't continue to happen with IBM, though.

I do have hopes on the hypothetical 980 PowerPC chip becoming a reality G5 for next August's announcement.

 

[mrsebastian]

how about we get g5s out in towers and laptops first and then we can start talking about the g6, which should be here in about 3-5 years according to past history.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

3-5 years according to past Motorola history. As has been documented in this thread and elsewhere, for those of you too lazy to read the thread before posting to it, G1 (601) lasted one year (1994-1995), G2 (1995-1997) and G3 (1997-1999) both lasted two years. G4 is the abnormality with its 4 year span (1999-2003), but that is entirely the fault of Motorola.

 

[Rocketman]

Re: Re: G6

Originally posted by Snowy_River

Eighteen months between G5 and G6 is not cutting the generation gap in half. It is bringing it back to what it should be.

Consider:

(G1) 601 March 1994
(G2) 603/604 April/May 1995
G3 November 1997
G4 September 1999
G5 May 2003

guess that we'll continue to see this, and that the debut of the G6 is due some time between next summer and the following summer.

I agree. I am in a business with a QUARTERLY technology upgrade cycle. But we are not dependent on chip shrink technology limits or their HUGE associated capital costs (entire factories for each revision).

In chips each reduction in die size and nanometer process improves processor size and complexity, reduces heat and power, and radically increases technology limits and capital costs. To me it is shocking that the size reductions offset the capital costs, and the net result is a cheaper high performance chip each generation. Someday soon each leap in technology will INCREASE cost to the consumer as we run into the technical limits of shrink technology.

Unless an entirely new optical or bio process is developed

Rocketman

 

[x86isslow]

"I would assume that IMB, Intel, AMD are always working on designs that are at least one and two generations beyond whatever is currently in production. I would include Motorola, but they seem to have had a brain spasm that skewed their sence of reality."

Its not that they had a brain spasm. Motorola just couldnt get the yields necessary to maintain profitability. Their 11 was supposedly too hot, and too few of the chips were viable. They havent abandoned their research completely, they continue to work on the g3.

we cant really be mad at them, just pity them, floundering with disasterous yields.

 

[kenaustus]

Lawyers will determine the life of the G4

In the end Apple Legal and Moto Legal will determine the point in time where Moto does not have exclusive rights to fab the G4. I think the question on the table is how Moto can keep Apple from moving to IBM for all processors, leaving Moto out in the cold. After their continual low yields I think they would be wise to let IBM fab their chips so at least they can shift part of the blame on them in the future.

We don't know the terms of the Apple Moto G4 agreement (but would love to) so at this time we can only see Moto milking as much as they can from the G4, knowing that the Apple business will die at the end of the agreement. Doesn't look good for Moto long term, but that was the path they chose to take.

My money is on IBM delivering faster than their roadmap, taking over all of Apple's needs and blasting Intel out of the water on perfornamce. We are going to see a fantastic year from Apple and the one after will be better.

 

[revenuee]

G6 in a year?

bearly any G5's out there as it is, other then the new OS, even apple hasn't released anything optimized for the G5 yet, 3rd party developers having new architecture to deal with as to create software optimized for the G5, probably won't release anything for atleast a another month, or more.

I can't see the next generation processor being released for atleast 2 or 3 years, not for public use anyway, to much money and time invested in the current generation... i'm sure they'de like to make some money off of what they have now.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

A lot of the development work in the G5 processor and architecture will help in the implementation of the G6 as well. I'm predicting the Power Mac G6 for MWSF 2005 right now.

 

[daveL]

Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
I think I read somewhere that the 980 was developed simultaneously with the POWER 5 unlike the Power4.

That was either sstated during the WWDC keynote or published in one of the post-WWDC press releases. I remember it distinctly.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Also, in the PMG5 intro video, an IBM rep said, "We have already built the prototypes for next generation PowerPC microprocessors."

 

[dho]

Is it just me or did MacB say they were going to quit doing rumors

anyway...

Given their past level of moderate consistency, this could be the making of a very "good thing"

 

[bcsimac]

I know I can't wait until the G6 comes out! I am still disappointed in the G5 being so darn late!

 

[yamabushi]

In 2004 Apple needs to have 980 chips in the PowerMac and Xserve and 970 chips in everything else. At the very least an all 970 lineup in 2004 is required. That way the OS can go fully 64bit in 2005.

 

[Exlaxxboy]

Apple..why?

I say that Apple Should invest on making the first water-proof Computer insides than we can have a liquid cooled Dual 2.0Ghz G5 Power book.. sure its a bit stupid to do so with Intel and Pentium Leading the market with windows doesnt mean I cant dream does it?


And of course one more thing the G5 can have 8GB of ram right now (becuase of ram card limitations) how bout apple instead of making 8 Ram Slots turn 4 of them into expantion slots for 2nd Drive and more HDDs either that or more fans you can never have too many fans