[Simon]

OK, we finally got the long expected G5.

So, what's next? What will the next revision look like?

- I suppose the first change will be that the board for the low-end PowerMac is dropped.

- Maybe the center model will go dual as well.

- If the next revsion comes in about half a year, will we get an additional 500MHz because Steve said +1GHz within 12 months?

- What will the next line-up look like? 1.8, dual 2, dual 2.5 ?

- When will the G4 PowerMacs disappear?

- What about prices. Will they stick where they are until the G4 PowerMacs are gone? Will they then trickle back down to the 1499 entry price?

[dfiler]

Now that Mac hardware seems to have leap-frogged Mac software, I am more eagerly anticipating OS and application updates. What we need now is better utilization of untapped hardware potential.

[MusicalTone]

I know, I know. That one's easy ... its the G6!

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by MusicalTone:
I know, I know. That one's easy ... its the G6!

That sounds good. It would be nice if the G6 crushed the competition without any doubt.

[slider]

Lol, the G5's aren't even a week old. Ahh to be a MacHead.

Well, the G4 will be around for awhile, but we will probably see the G3 disappear. I am hoping Apple brings the iBooks to G4's and really ups the speed in PowerBooks. Now that the PowerMacs have gone G5 I think Apple would be wise to bring the iMac up to a 1.42 G4 are have the eMac fall inline with the lower models as appropriate. Generally bring all the laptops and Consumer models up as far as they can to compete with PC consumer models. I hope Apple doesn't mess around with slowly speeding up the other lines; really would be a mistake. Let the whole line ride to wake of the G5

As far as the G5 itself I would also like to see Apple go dual across the board, but knowing Apple the best we might expect is DP in the top two models. I would be shocked if by the next update they didn't do that. And yes, definately pick up the Lower end model in specs.

Of course the sooner they up the speeds and upgrade the processors the better. Crush, stomp and destroy the competition. Make it so the PC isn't better at anything w/o a doubt. Hit 'em and keep hitting 'em.

[The Placid Casual]

I'll be looking forward only once my G5 Dualie is delivered in September!

However IBM stated they are already sampling the next generation, G6?, based on the Power5 Core... by all accounts, a dual core design!

In the shorter term, we can look forward to a die shrink to a .90 process, probably called the 980. Low power versions for Powerbooks, possible dual core versions of the 970, an XStation with quad machines? Oh and lots of Mhz.

If Steve annonced they can do 3Ghz in 12 months, this will be conservative to make sure the target is hit... it could be a lot higher...

With IBM, the future is very, very interesting...

[scottiB]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
(snip)...
With IBM, the future is very, very interesting...

Yep. If the 980 will be marketed as a "G6" sometime in 2004, it really requires a mental adjustment after having a PM G4 for four years.

[jcadam]

I wouldn't be suprised to see the iMac go to something like a 1.4GHz G5.

[CIA]

I think the heatsinks required for a 1.42 wouldn't fit in an iMac. They are just overclocked chips anyway.

G6 is next, based on the Power5 Chip from IBM, it's also called the PowerPC 980. If you do a Google search you can find some info on it now, looks like a promising upgrade to the G5.
I remember reading that the G5 can't have a dual core, despite being based on the power4 which can. By chance the upgrade to the Power5 based chips (Aka PPC980 aka G6) will remedy this?
We need 256 bit computing today. Make the OS think it's dealing with 4 64 bit chips, or better yet, 8 32's.


Or one 128 and 4 32's? Think of what a good coder could do!

[Simon]

Originally posted by CIA:
I think the heatsinks required for a 1.42 wouldn't fit in an iMac. They are just overclocked chips anyway.

He was talking about a G5 which no way is overclocked at 1.42GHz. And BTW, the 1.42GHz G4s in PowerMacs weren't either. Urban legend.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by CIA:
I think the heatsinks required for a 1.42 wouldn't fit in an iMac. They are just overclocked chips anyway.

We need 256 bit computing today. Make the OS think it's dealing with 4 64 bit chips, or better yet, 8 32's.


Or one 128 and 4 32's? Think of what a good coder could do!

For the last time, the chips are not overclocked.

Why do you need a 256bit processor? It doesn't mean it's 4X faster then a 64bit chip, infact it could be slower. Dual core doesn't make something have more bits, it's simply dual processors with a very high speed interconnect.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
For the last time, the chips are not overclocked.

Why do you need a 256bit processor? It doesn't mean it's 4X faster then a 64bit chip, infact it could be slower. Dual core doesn't make something have more bits, it's simply dual processors with a very high speed interconnect.

Indeed, I don't foresee consumer machines moving past 64-bit for a LONG time. The transition from 32-bit to 64 will probably be a long-drawn out process. Much less abrupt than the move from 16 to 32 (which was REALLY needed at the time). We're at the point now where only maybe 5-10% of users would see a significant benefit from 64-bit processing (that number will climb though).

[CIA]

What I was referring to was with a 256bit chip, and some good coding, you could make the OS see 8 32 or 4 64 bit chips, instead of 1 256bit chip. Intel has something kinda like this.... (Stressing the kinda)

You would need a special chip designed to run like this, I don't think you could take a G5 and make it show up to the OS as 2 32 bit chips. (Which would open up to a quad 32bit machine based on 2 actual 64bit chips.)

Back to reality:

• The G4's at 1.42 are overclocked.
• I was under the impression that the G5 was running cooler then a G4, hence they would fit in a powerbook quickly. Then I saw the G5's heatsinks..... As for powerbooks, maybe a downclocked 1.4Ghz model?
• Liquid cooling?
• Can IBM make these chips fast enough?

Granted I have MUCH more faith in IBM to crank out these chips compared to Motorola. I still wonder if they have not ramped up production to have enough chips for the entire Apple line-up.
Also, aren't there new IBM G3's that have altivec on them?

[Eug Wanker]

The G4's at 1.42 are overclocked.

Not according to Motorola. That said, they aren't gonna get too much further than 1.42 GHz on a 0.18 um process.

I was under the impression that the G5 was running cooler then a G4, hence they would fit in a powerbook quickly. Then I saw the G5's heatsinks.....

At the same MHz, the G5 runs significantly hotter than the G4 7457 (which is out in Q3).

As for powerbooks, maybe a downclocked 1.4Ghz model?

Even a 1.2 PPC 970 G5 would be a tad hot for a laptop, and I dunno what kind of power saving features IBM has built into the chip. My guess is not a whole lot besides the fact that the chip can drop the speed.

Liquid cooling?

AFAIK the current laptops already have some form of heat pipes or liquid cooling or something like that. Can somebody clarify?

Can IBM make these chips fast enough?

My bet is that yes, IBM can.

[rezzi]

A quad G6, what else? An app could be finished before it starts.

[CIA]

I wonder, given that the G6 is so close, (less then 2 years, if Apple has it's way)
if some developers may skip the G5 and just start building apps (were talking big apps, like Maya) for the PPC980.

[AssassyN]

I'm wondering what the CPU specs in the Rev. B G5's will look like...will they simply shoot the 1.8 down to the bottom-line machine, or will they add "Duals"?

I sure hope the hype on Panther doesn't slow down updates, b/c the lack of speed increases is what really hurts Apple.

[Simon]

Originally posted by AssassyN:
I'm wondering what the CPU specs in the Rev. B G5's will look like...

This was actually the intention of this thread. I wanted to hear what you guys think will come in 6 or 12 months from now. Not this silly G6 stuff that is just vaporware at present (yeah, I know IBM has mentioned the 980 and the Power5, but please...)

What will rev B look like? When will it be here. Will Apple stick with the pricing but max the power or will they climb slowly with the clock but go down with prices?

[Eug]

Here's a rehash of my post in this thread.

Jan 2004 - same G5 case (since the case design can easily handle it):

Low end: 2.0 GHz PPC 970
Mid end: 2.2 GHz PPC 970
High end: Dual 2.4 GHz PPC 970

Not very creative, but I honestly don't think that the mid-range will go dual. The G4 was so slow in comparison to the competition that Apple was forced to go dual. Unfortunately, it didn't help a lot for most apps, because most apps were not well-optimized for SMP and because the CPUs were far too starved for bus bandwidth.

OTOH, a 2.2 GHz PPC 970 on a 1.1 GHz bus with DDR400x2 dual channel memory will just fly. There is no need for a mid-range dual anymore for the vast majority of people. I agree with Apple's decision to remove the dual from the mid-range and hope it stays that way. Why do I hope it stays that way? Because it will mean they don't see a need to play catch up with the mid range, and it will keep costs down.

I also predict a G5 Xserve before the end of the year, if they can work out the power issues.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by Simon:
This was actually the intention of this thread. I wanted to hear what you guys think will come in 6 or 12 months from now. Not this silly G6 stuff that is just vaporware at present (yeah, I know IBM has mentioned the 980 and the Power5, but please...)

What will rev B look like? When will it be here. Will Apple stick with the pricing but max the power or will they climb slowly with the clock but go down with prices?

The next rev should arrive 6-7 months away from September (around March).

Low end:
current midrange, 1.8GHz
Middle:
dual 2.0 GHz
High end:
dual 2.5 GHz

Prices will probably remain as they are now.

[ASIMO]

Nanotubes...or something like that. That crazy-looking mathematica guy seems convinced.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by ASIMO:
Nanotubes...or something like that. That crazy-looking mathematica guy seems convinced.

Sure, in 2010 maybe. They'll be great.

On topic, there have been statements by IBM people that suggest (empahasis on suggest, not confirm) that the 970 family will get SMT (hyperthreading) and an on chip memory controller, so here's my guess as to what the G6 will look like:

970 core
1MB L2 cache
on chip DDRII controller
'Hyperthreading'
3GHz+
.09 micron

Since IBM has stated that it's the 'PPC 9xx' family, I imagine there would be several other variants. If IBM wants to take a run at the high end embedded space (currently dominated by the G4), a low power .09 micron 970 with RapidIO and DDR would look very nice indeed.

[CIA]

Depending on the cost of the chips and what the competition is up to... Apple MAY just bump to duals across the line, with a very minor speed bump. That way the margin stays high.
As IBM refines it's manufacturing process, chip costs come down which helps Apple's bottom line (the most important thing really, regardless of what Steve says).

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Eug:
Not very creative, but I honestly don't think that the mid-range will go dual. The G4 was so slow in comparison to the competition that Apple was forced to go dual. Unfortunately, it didn't help a lot for most apps, because most apps were not well-optimized for SMP and because the CPUs were far too starved for bus bandwidth.

I'm not going to argue with you about the bus, but the OS X scheduler takes care of the "optimization" for SMP. If an app is threaded, its threads can be scheduled across two processors. With OS X, you really do notice a difference with two processors, and since Apple has put so much emphasis on this in the past I wouldn't be surprised if we see more dual G5s as soon as production starts to catch up with demand.

[hmurchison2001]

The future as I see it

Feb 2003:

Powermac G5 2.4Ghz Duallie= $3000
PowerMac G5 2.2Ghz Duallie= $2399
Powermac G5 2.0Ghz Single =$1699

August 2003:

Powermac G5 3.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5 2.5Ghz Duallie(90nm)$2399
Powermac G5 2.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$1699

Feb 2004

Powermac G5 3.4Ghz Duallie(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5 3.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$2399
Powermac G5 2.5Ghz Duallie(90nm)$1699

August 2004

Powermac G5+ 3.0Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5+ 2.6Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$2499
Powermac G5+ 2.4Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$2000

Powermac G5+ will utilize the new POWER5 Derived PPC 980 chip. Fabbed @ 90nm and supporting more efficient Altivec cores and Set Associate Caches the PPC980 systems will debut as Single Processors with SMT support allowing for virtual SMP. OSX 10.4 Codenamed
Ocelot will be further optimized and very "nimble" and quick.

The PPC 980 will max out at the 90nm process at around 4.2Ghz. IBM will move to The PPC990 at that point which ushers in Dual Cores and SMT per core allowing Virtual Octo Processing on SMP configs.

[DeathMan]

Feb 2004

Powermac G5 3.4Ghz Duallie(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5 3.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$2399
Powermac G5 2.5Ghz Duallie(90nm)$1699

August 2004

Powermac G5+ 3.0Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5+ 2.6Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$2499
Powermac G5+ 2.4Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$2000

Its going to be difficult to explain why they took backwark in clockspeed, but if anyone can do it, I'm sure Apple Marketing can.

Also, I'm sure you mean 2005 on these.

[Superchicken]

Lower Mhz means faster, that's why the G4s were so fast!

heh

I suspect the next rev will be earlier than 6 months, perhaps 4 or 5 months, and then 3-4 month revs after that, hence apple can keep intel on the run, and if IBM is fabbing these fast that might not be a problem to do.

Also I think apple might be looking for a portable solution to the G4 from IBM. i dout they wanna keep shoving money in Moto's pocket, and the G4 already has a bad name, I dout we'll see more than a year of G4 iBooks if we see em at all.

Then again would IBM care that much about the portable market, it's not huge, it's not like the server market, Apple WOULD be the only one buying unless it was also aimed at the embeded market... so could the year of the laptop be known that way becuase after that all apple was able to do was design cool cases and not stick good processors in em?

[Eug]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
I'm not going to argue with you about the bus, but the OS X scheduler takes care of the "optimization" for SMP. If an app is threaded, its threads can be scheduled across two processors. With OS X, you really do notice a difference with two processors, and since Apple has put so much emphasis on this in the past I wouldn't be surprised if we see more dual G5s as soon as production starts to catch up with demand.

Yeah you do notice an improvement with dual, but that's partially because say a 1 GHz G4 is comparatively slow to begin with.

I wouldn't mind dual 1.8s though.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
The next rev should arrive 6-7 months away from September (around March).

Low end:
current midrange, 1.8GHz
Middle:
dual 2.0 GHz
High end:
dual 2.5 GHz

Prices will probably remain as they are now.

Sounds good, though I'd like to see 2, dual 2, and dual 2.5, and then stick the 1.6s and 1.8s in the iMacs.

[CIA]

Sounds good, though I'd like to see 2, dual 2, and dual 2.5, and then stick the 1.6s and 1.8s in the iMacs.

This sounds great to all of us, but it still (I hate to keep mentioning this) depends on the bottom line. iMacs are supposed to be cheap. I'm sure that Moto's G4's are pretty cheap at this point. Especially now that Motorola see's a darker future with IBM back in the game. (and making moto looks like chumps in the process) It's no wonder that Motorola's Semi division has had a "for sale" sign outside it's door for so long.

Bottom line, If it's cheap, Apple will stick with the G4 for awhile in the iMac's. Imagine the case redesign for the G5 heatsink? Also I expect the iBook to bump to g4's soon.
Short Range:

• Powermacs - All G5's
• iMacs - All G4's
• iBook -Low end G4's
• Powerbooks - The fastest thing they can pack in there... Probably a G4 for awhile.

Long range:

• Powermacs - All Dual G5
• iMacs - Single G5's, but maybe all dual G4's, whatever is cheaper. A minor case re-design may be needed to fit G5 and heatsinks in there.
• iBook - Speedbumps, minor motherboard changes, maybe new case.
• Powerbook - Hmmmm, dunno here, It seems G5's are hot. But Apple marketing could do wonders with "64bit Laptop".

Longer Range:

• Powermac - G6, Maybe Dual...
• iMac - All G5, new case.
• iBook - Final Generation G4's
• Powerbook. G5's

The eMac is the bastard son of the Powermac and the old iMac. I don't know what happens in that arena. I didn't expect it to last this long to begin with.

Also, IBM has a G3 with altivec on it? Fast too....

[Mr Ti]

it is interesting you mention a dual G4 iMac. Not many people have mentioned this before, but it seems quite realistic.

This has the potential seperate the iMac and eMac by leaving the eMac as the only desktop on a single processor, with the Powermac G5 going to dualies.

Dual G4 19inch iMac, ... I would take that over a 1.6 G5 with 17inch studio display all day long....

[Simon]

Originally posted by Mr Ti:
it is interesting you mention a dual G4 iMac. Not many people have mentioned this before, but it seems quite realistic.

To me, it seems quite the opposite. Dual G4s make the iMac much too epensive for too little competitive advantage. Consumers want GHz and Gflops, not some space-lectures on why the MHz myth is a myth blabla (even though I myself do understand it is somewhat a myth).

I think Apple is aiming toward a rather diverse plattform (at least in the near future):

The high-end: G5 for the PowerMac

The middle class: G4s (7457 and maybe 7457-RM) for the PowerBook and the iMac and probably also for the eMac (until it is dropped in about a year from now - finally)

The low end: G3s (but 750GX Gobi chips) for the iBook, since they are powerful, cheap and very low on power.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
The future as I see it

Feb 2003:

Powermac G5 2.4Ghz Duallie= $3000
PowerMac G5 2.2Ghz Duallie= $2399
Powermac G5 2.0Ghz Single =$1699

August 2003:

Powermac G5 3.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5 2.5Ghz Duallie(90nm)$2399
Powermac G5 2.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$1699

Feb 2004

Powermac G5 3.4Ghz Duallie(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5 3.0Ghz Duallie(90nm)$2399
Powermac G5 2.5Ghz Duallie(90nm)$1699

August 2004

Powermac G5+ 3.0Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$3000
Powermac G5+ 2.6Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$2499
Powermac G5+ 2.4Ghz PPC 980(90nm)$2000

Powermac G5+ will utilize the new POWER5 Derived PPC 980 chip. Fabbed @ 90nm and supporting more efficient Altivec cores and Set Associate Caches the PPC980 systems will debut as Single Processors with SMT support allowing for virtual SMP. OSX 10.4 Codenamed
Ocelot will be further optimized and very "nimble" and quick.

The PPC 980 will max out at the 90nm process at around 4.2Ghz. IBM will move to The PPC990 at that point which ushers in Dual Cores and SMT per core allowing Virtual Octo Processing on SMP configs.

Häh, did I miss something. These babies are around for 4 months now and nobody told me

No, I think the PPC980 will debut sooner than that. The Power5 will come out beginning of 2004 ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by CIA:
...

Back to reality:

• The G4's at 1.42 are overclocked.
• I was under the impression that the G5 was running cooler then a G4, hence they would fit in a powerbook quickly. Then I saw the G5's heatsinks..... As for powerbooks, maybe a downclocked 1.4Ghz model?
• Liquid cooling?
• Can IBM make these chips fast enough?

...

The G4s are not overclocked. Moto doesn't sell them officially to anyone else. Because their core marked is embedded stuff and these things are no good for embedded applications.

They are labeled 1.42 GHz, so they are not overclocked.

[Simon]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
They are labeled 1.42 GHz, so they are not overclocked.

Thanks for repeating this fact because obviously some special hard heads still didn't get it.

[CIA]

I still could swear the original 1.42's were overclocked 1.25's. Moto may have caught up now, but when the MDD was first released? I mean the 1.42 shipped months after the others....

[chrisutley]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
For the last time, the chips are not overclocked.

Not everybody reads every post you make on this board.

[msuper69]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
For the last time, the chips are not overclocked.
...

Promise?

[Superchicken]

hehehe

poor scotty boy.

Anyway, Why would apple wanna be throwing money at Moto who has done nothing for em, when they could instead move the iMac over to low power G5s? they could take the bottom of the barrel one that the power mac can't use, IBM really won't want for their servers, and stick em in the iMacs and eMacs, I could see the Power Books moving to the G4-rm, but... yeah... I think Apple wants to drop moto as soon as humanly possible

[Mac Zealot]

From what I've heard + seen IBM promised a 3ghz 970 chip by next year. OPTIMISTICALLY that could be as early as MWSF, or as late as WWDC/MWNY

Either is good. a 1ghz jump in 6 months would be jaw-dropping, and frankly, exactly what the mac platform could use... a 1 year jump is still rather impressive but if apple brought out a 2ghz g5 I'm sure a 3ghz one is right down the road.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
From what I've heard + seen IBM promised a 3ghz 970 chip by next year. OPTIMISTICALLY that could be as early as MWSF, or as late as WWDC/MWNY

Either is good. a 1ghz jump in 6 months would be jaw-dropping, and frankly, exactly what the mac platform could use... a 1 year jump is still rather impressive but if apple brought out a 2ghz g5 I'm sure a 3ghz one is right down the road.

watch the stream...i don't know the exact wording but they obviously meant "in a year's time" opposed to "next year".

stop spreading the lies and pumping everybody up with false rumors. a 2.5ghz at MWSF is not shabby. A 3Ghz by next september is more realistic and what should be expected.