[jocker]

What does everyone reckon.

The G4 7448 (used in the powerbook) consumes 10 watts of power, whereas the G5 at 1.4 ghz only consumes 13W, and at 1.6ghz only 16w.

Will these make it into a powerbook before the Intel revision?

I sure hope so...

[Link]

It depends on how the 8641D compares to the 970FX if that can be had, if not you'll likely see a 7448 in the ibook and a 970fx in the powerbook.

[liquidtrance123]

the way the clock speeds are on those low power G5's wouldn't the new 7448 G4's outperform them?

I mean i can see apple getting the 7448 @ 2Ghz on a 200mhz FSB i think it would be a close call between those and the 1.6Ghz G5. Of course the G5's do have a much higher FSB. Who knows?

[Phossil]

no G5 powerbooks - wait for the intelbooks which will be more powerful than the G5s (except they probably won't be 64 bit ) and will consume far less power and produce far less heat.

[Eug Wanker]

The "typical" power specs are misleading at times. With a typical of 16 Watts, I'd bet the max Wattage is over 25.

ie. It's possible they could put a 1.8 in a laptop, but it'd be kinda hot (although not as hot as the Mobile Pentium 4 at 3 GHz or whatever).

[iceage]

Steve Jobs has been courting the investment community big time lately and all they want to see are numbers , numbers , numbers . If he doesn't want to feel Wall Street's wrath ( and become last years news ) he has to keep sales climbing and that would mean a G5 Powerbook .If Apple's stock went down $5 / share the companies value would drop by over four billion dollars . Big ouch. I would think they have already spent the R&D money anyways , so they might as well build it . This would also take pressure off of Apple to rush the Mactel . Anyways , I want them to build it and thats all that matters to me .

[goMac]

These things aren't as fast as the Pentium M. With the Pentium M running faster than a 3.6 ghz P4, IBM expects a 1.6 ghz G5 to beat those?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iceage

Steve Jobs has been courting the investment community big time lately and all they want to see are numbers , numbers , numbers . If he doesn't want to feel Wall Street's wrath ( and become last years news ) he has to keep sales climbing and that would mean a G5 Powerbook .If Apple's stock went down $5 / share the companies value would drop by over four billion dollars . Big ouch. I would think they have already spent the R&D money anyways , so they might as well build it . This would also take pressure off of Apple to rush the Mactel . Anyways , I want them to build it and thats all that matters to me .

Many people think the inability to produce a G5 PowerBook chip was one of big reasons (possibly the deciding reason) for the Intel switch.

[Link]

Originally Posted by goMac

These things aren't as fast as the Pentium M. With the Pentium M running faster than a 3.6 ghz P4, IBM expects a 1.6 ghz G5 to beat those?

They have a higher bus speed and a much more modern design so YES I'd expect them to run a bit better than a Pentium M....

Besides you're not being fair. Intel's gotten the P-M up to 2.2ghz or so (though those chips are probably about as much as IBM will charge for 2 1.6ghz 970fxes), and generally the G4 is equivalent to a P-M in clock-for-clock, the G5 a bit more like an athlon64, and you know how those measure up against P4s

You people need to yank that Intel marketing brochure stuff outta your deep ends.

[iceage]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Many people think the inability to produce a G5 PowerBook chip was one of big reasons (possibly the deciding reason) for the Intel switch.

I guess time will tell , but I think if it is possible to build a G5 Powerbook there will be tremendous pressure to do so . If these numbers from IBM are correct it is certainly possible . My comment was more in response to the people who think that it is not worthwhile for Apple to build a G5 Powerbook for only a 12 - 18 month timeframe . Also there is nothing to stop Apple to keep selling both ( IBM and Intel ) side by side for another year or so .

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by goMac

With the Pentium M running faster than a 3.6 ghz P4

? What are you smoking? On most tests, a P4 3.6 is significantly faster than the fastest Pentium M.

Originally Posted by Link

They have a higher bus speed and a much more modern design so YES I'd expect them to run a bit better than a Pentium M....

Well then, in most situations, you'd be dead wrong.

Besides you're not being fair. Intel's gotten the P-M up to 2.2ghz or so (though those chips are probably about as much as IBM will charge for 2 1.6ghz 970fxes),

Sez who?

generally the G4 is equivalent to a P-M in clock-for-clock,

Wrong again. The Pentium M clock for clock blows the G4 away.

the G5 a bit more like an athlon64, and you know how those measure up against P4s

Athlon 64 is usually faster clock for clock in terms of overall performance, and when you're talking memory performance, Athlon 64 blows the G5 out of the water in dual-processor configs.

You people need to yank that Intel marketing brochure stuff outta your deep ends.

You should probably turn up your RDF shield a bit.

Originally Posted by iceage

I think if it is possible to build a G5 Powerbook there will be tremendous pressure to do so .

Why? If Apple released a G4 7448 1.8 GHz PowerBook this summer, that would suffice until Pentium M Yonah appears in early 2006.

If these numbers from IBM are correct it is certainly possible .

Well, that was my previous point. These numbers from IBM are not "correct" in the sense that you can't take them at face value. What they tell us is that 1.6-1.8 GHz is about as fast as we're going to get in a laptop, and not have that great a battery life either. The typical power spec is significantly lower than the chip's max power. Apple likes to have chips with a max power under 30 Watts, but I'd guess a 1.8 GHz low power G5 would probably be higher than 30.

My comment was more in response to the people who think that it is not worthwhile for Apple to build a G5 Powerbook for only a 12 - 18 month timeframe .

More like 9-12 months, before Yonah hits (unless Intel runs into problems, which is quite possible).

Also there is nothing to stop Apple to keep selling both ( IBM and Intel ) side by side for another year or so .

Possible, but unlikely. It just confuses the line.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

? What are you smoking? On most tests, a P4 3.6 is significantly faster than the fastest Pentium M.

Wrong. Pentium M can slam even the Pentium 4 EE.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...ntium4-10.html

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by goMac

Wrong. Pentium M can slam even the Pentium 4 EE.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...ntium4-10.html

Of course, you picked the bench where Pentium 4 does poorly and Pentium M does well. Pentium M is a gaming monster, but for most other things it gets its ass kicked by even the Pentium 4 3.2.

For example:

Media encoding:



3D rendering:



Pentium M is an amazing chip, but let's not overestimate its abilities.

[pat++]

This mobile G5 would problably be slower than the 7448. The 7448 has 200mhz system bus, 1mb L2 cache (the G5 only has 512k). Moreover IBM *announced* the chip which doesn't mean it's available in large quantity. To sum up : IBM did announce a new chip, but they still don't produce any.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Of course, you picked the bench where Pentium 4 does poorly and Pentium M does well. Pentium M is a gaming monster, but for most other things it gets its ass kicked by even the Pentium 4 3.2.

Those are benches for 2.0 ghz Pentium M's. My link has benches on 2.5 ghz ones. Obviously your benches are going to be slower for the Pentium M.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by goMac

Those are benches for 2.0 ghz Pentium M's. My link has benches on 2.5 ghz ones. Obviously your benches are going to be slower for the Pentium M.

Maybe you don't realize, but the 2.5 GHz Dothan doesn't exist. The bench is using an overclocked chip.

Dothan maxes out at 2.13 MHz.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Maybe you don't realize, but the 2.5 GHz Dothan doesn't exist. The bench is using an overclocked chip.

Dothan maxes out at 2.13 MHz.

He still showed a PM beating the top Pentium EE at a much lower speed.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

He still showed a PM beating the top Pentium EE at a much lower speed.

Well, no surprise there. Pentium M is MUCH faster than Pentium 4 clock for clock, and an overclocked Pentium M is going to bench quite well in certain tests. However, the bottom line is that:

1) Overall, a P4 3.6 is noticeably faster than the fastest (non-overclocked) Pentium M for most usage.
2) There is no such thing as a Pentium M 2.5 GHz.

To claim otherwise is misleading at best.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, no surprise there. Pentium M is MUCH faster than Pentium 4 clock for clock, and an overclocked Pentium M is going to bench quite well in certain tests. However, the bottom line is that:

1) Overall, a P4 3.6 is noticeably faster than the fastest (non-overclocked) Pentium M for most usage.
2) There is no such thing as a Pentium M 2.5 GHz.

To claim otherwise is misleading at best.

1: Everybody knows that.
2: Nobody said there was.

By the time Apple uses one they will have replaced Pentium 4 and will be over 3ghz. It's tasty as chips come.

[Dave Hagan]

You guys are losing sight of something — the landscape will be slightly different when Apple starts offering Intel-based Mac hardware. For example, we are expecting Apple will start off with the new Yonah Pentium M and its dual cores. Additionally, Apple will probably use the Pentium D in its desktops. This debate over Dothan versus P4 3.6GHz/whatever is irrelevant and will be irrevelant by the time Apple gets there in 6-8 months because it will be old news then.

The question at hand is will Apple put a G5 processor in a PowerBook? I think the answer is still shrouded in mystery. Weak PowerBook G4 update in late January '05, no iBook G4 update since October of last year. Something needs to be done with both lines of Apple's portables line-up. The competition is starting to swallow Apple whole strictly on price, performance, and features. Portables are accounting for more and more of Apple's bottom line, and so Apple needs to get on the stick.

So Steve: Where are those great PowerPC products "yet to be introduced?"

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

1: Everybody knows that.

Apparently not goMac.

2: Nobody said there was.

See above.

By the time Apple uses one they will have replaced Pentium 4 and will be over 3ghz. It's tasty as chips come.

Incorrect. They will not be over 3 GHz. Not even close.

Supposedly Yonah in early 2006 is to be clocked similarly to what Dothan is clocked in early 2005. However, they will be dual-core, which is why Pentium M is such a win for Apple's PowerBook line..

Originally Posted by Dave Hagan

You guys are losing sight of something — the landscape will be slightly different when Apple starts offering Intel-based Mac hardware. For example, we are expecting Apple will start off with the new Yonah Pentium M and its dual cores.

I agree.

Additionally, Apple will probably use the Pentium D in its desktops.

I doubt it. I get the feeling that Apple won't use any Pentium 4 derived part.

This debate over Dothan versus P4 3.6GHz/whatever is irrelevant and will be irrevelant by the time Apple gets there in 6-8 months because it will be old news then.

Well, it's useful in the context of Yonah, since Yonah is based off Dothan. If we know how fast Dothan is, we get a ballpark idea what a single core of Yonah can do, although Yonah has further enhancemnents besides power.

The question at hand is will Apple put a G5 processor in a PowerBook? I think the answer is still shrouded in mystery. Weak PowerBook G4 update in late January '05, no iBook G4 update since October of last year. Something needs to be done with both lines of Apple's portables line-up.

I'm doubtful now of the G5 PowerBook. A G4 7448 at 1.8 GHz and 1 MB L2 would be OK (but not great).

So Steve: Where are those great PowerPC products "yet to be introduced?"

970MP

[Scooterboy]

I would replace my 17" G4 with a PowerBook G5.

[teney7]

I just ordered a new 12'' PB... should I be worried about the G5 totally eclipsing my PB (if they make it)?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by teney7

I just ordered a new 12'' PB... should I be worried about the G5 totally eclipsing my PB (if they make it)?

If you need it now, get it. If you don't, you could wait but like I said I'd be surprised if they release a G5 PowerBook, and the Intel PowerBooks won't appear until 2006.

I think I may replace my PowerBook 15" G4 1 GHz with an iBook 12" G4 1.33 GHz (cuz I want the smaller form factor), and then get a new dual-core 1.66 GHz Yonah PowerBook 13" widescreen in 2006. Or maybe I'll just stick with the iBook. My iMac G5 2.0 serves me well for the times I need more speed.

[maCCer]

Originally Posted by goMac

These things aren't as fast as the Pentium M. With the Pentium M running faster than a 3.6 ghz P4, IBM expects a 1.6 ghz G5 to beat those?

can u provide some evidences that Pentium M running faster than 3.6 Ghz P4?

[maCCer]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Of course, you picked the bench where Pentium 4 does poorly and Pentium M does well. Pentium M is a gaming monster, but for most other things it gets its ass kicked by even the Pentium 4 3.2.

For example:

Media encoding:



3D rendering:



Pentium M is an amazing chip, but let's not overestimate its abilities.

nice point

And i would like to know the speed comparison between PPC 1.5G, and Pentium M 1.5(maybe around that number)

[Randman]

The PowerBooks will never go G5.

[rhythmicmoose]

Freescale's already announced the 7448, but they won't be in large enough production for Apple to release a product until October or November at the very least. The 970FXs will probably be produced at a similar rate (assuming IBM didn't just rush this announcement to cover their asses).

The current crop of PowerBooks was released in January 2005, so they'll certainly be needing an update by the holiday season. With the first Intel-based Macs coming out in June 2006, that would give the PowerBook G5 a 6-7 month life cycle, which is about average for Apple's product line. So yeah, there's room in the roadmap for a PowerBook G5, but that's assuming that 1) IBM didn't rush the announcement and 2) Apple is willing to give them that sort of satisfaction after they kept us waiting for so long (I'm not sure I buy this, but many people have speculated that there is some animosity between the two companies over this issue).

I personally think Apple would try to put together a PowerBook G5 because of the sales it'll be likely to bring in, but then again, would they introduce a 64-bit chip into the PowerBook line, only to take it away in the next revision (by replacing it with the 32-bit "Yonah" Pentium M)?

Just to note: Apple will definitely be using the 970MP in future PowerMacs, since Intel-based PowerMacs aren't due out until Intel begins producing the successor to it's Pentium 4-derived chips (the Pentium D is a P4 derivative, and won't be used if the 970MP is made available in a timely fashion).

[zerf25]

do we know that Apple is going to introduce Intel Powerbooks in 2006?
As far as I know they said they would start with the lower end (MacMini, iMac??)
depending on how fast the production of the new G5s go a G5 is entirely possible in my opinion.

This all could also make sure that Apple sales don't slump before the transition.
I'm sure there a still plenty of people that were waiting for G5 Powerbook.

[osxisfun]

the mini and the ibook and the powerbook all share the same needs as far as low power, low heat and small mobo.

i think if you do one, you do them all at the same time...

time will tell.. and for the record i do not think the mini or the ibook will be dual core. only the pb - until the desktops.

[Link]

*falls over laughing*

[jyunderwood]

Originally Posted by Link

Funny as hell

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Link

*falls over laughing*

Of course, there will never be a P4 or Mobile P4 Mac laptop.

One of these days, your Intel Mac posts might actually make sense...

[Randman]

P4 PowerBook has as much chance of seeing daylight as a G5 PowerBook. Both are at nil.

[cloudaj]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

the mini and the ibook and the powerbook all share the same needs as far as low power, low heat and small mobo.

i think if you do one, you do them all at the same time...

time will tell.. and for the record i do not think the mini or the ibook will be dual core. only the pb - until the desktops.

Jobs said in the WWDC keynote that they had essentially failed the portable power market by not being able to provide a G5 powerbook, and that they need to remedy that ASAP, essentially. I don't think it makes sense to transition the powerbook line to G5 and then to intel, especailly given that the Yonah chip comes out in early 2006 and is suited for the kind of power apple wants to put in their laptops, runs cooler, and allows for more battery life than the G5 will at that point. Apple can do some neat stuff with that chip when they're designing their laptops, as opposed to the G5, where they're going to have to employ some intensive cooling technologies and just a general headache overall to get that machine working. The powerbook needs a major update, and the general consensus is that the Yonah chip is going to get them there, not the G5.

[osxisfun]

I agree completely. that was the meaning of the post. the ibook, PB and mini are all just wating to be yonah-ized.

its going to be a nice day when that happens next spring.

[Link]

I was joking about the PB pic, I really meant Pentium M (note the centrino pic), .... which that machine (in reality) IS...

FWIW that's a dell xps laptop, and I think the photoshop is an improvement upon the real thing

[hakstooy]

This whole announcement does have the ol' noggin in a twist.

I had pretty much written off the PowerBook G5 as a myth, and its inability to materialize as probably the most significant factor in the move to Intel. I figured that the laptops and the mini would be the first lines to get the Intel processors. I guessed that the line would get the 7448 sometime in the fall and that would be it until the IntelBooks in summer/fall 2006.

Basically Apple needs to do something in the interim for the PowerBook and iBook lines before the Intel migration that is at least 12 months away, but could very easily be longer. It would be murder on the bottomline if they did nothing until then. That would mean nearly 24 months between revisions on the iBook and damn near 18 for the PowerBook.

When I'm looking at this void, combined with the imminent switch, people need a carrot to keep them from just waiting. A PowerBook G5 would be a fantastic carrot. I'd imagine people would buy them in droves. There are the "graybeards" and the people who will be stuck with PPC software (Rosetta does not look like it is some kind of miracle worker) who will clamor for the last ultimate PPC platform.

I had thought there was no way, but I imagine Apple has had engineers and designers working to crack this egg for a good solid while now, working with specs that IBM had furnished them about the low-power G5 they were developing, and basically just waiting for IBM to deliver. So most of the work is probably done. If the components themselves are designed, then maybe its not so far fetched.

Plus, there is the PR side of things. Sure the overall impression seems to be positive in regards to the Intel migration, but it does make any new Mac announcements until them pretty much background noise. Any Mac developments will not really be newsworthy to the general public ('cept maybe the 970MP), and seeing as Apple's success of late is a result of the media buzz surrounding them and their products, this would be really bad. An entire year of everyone ignoring your products is really, really bad.

But a PowerBook G5 would do wonders to alleviate that. There is so much pent up demand and interest in this ethereal wonder that people would be all over it. Plus it would be the "World's First 64-bit Notebook: at 1-inch Thick." Press out the tooshy.

'Course, the only hitch here is that Apple would never go BACK from 64-bit to 32. An since Yonah (everyone's guess for the Intel proc going into the PowerBook) is 32, that kinda negates any G5 action...

Unless...maybe the PowerBooks aren't gonna be among the first Intel products. Maybe Apple plans to have 2 years of PowerBook G5s until the Yonah succesor; a 64-bit dual core lil baddie comes down the line.

I dunno, could be...

[Scooterboy]

Yes, 64 bit across the board for Apple pro "Power" computers. I will buy a PowerBook G5 before a PowerBook Centrino so I won't have to run my expensive software in emulation. And to have a PowerBook G5

[joltguy]

I'd love to see (and buy!) a PowerBook G5 before our inevitable transition.

[Scooterboy]

maybe the PowerBooks aren't gonna be among the first Intel products. Maybe Apple plans to have 2 years of PowerBook G5s until the Yonah succesor; a 64-bit dual core lil baddie comes down the line.

Yes, maybe the first Intel PowerBook will use a 64 bit Intel chip that's on their "future roadmap" that SJ likes so much. The G5 will keep the PowerBooks up with the top performers until then. Before buying an Intel PowerBook, I'd wait to make sure all my software is available in native Intel versions. G3 emulation isn't gonna cut it.

[alimunnik]

I don't think Powerbook G5 would be such a big hit; with so many people anticipating a dual Yonah by mid 2006. Lots of people would be reluctant to shell out 3 grand on a product line that could be "phased out" in six months or so. When SJ announced the switch to Intel he had most likely given up on a G5 notebook altogether.
Apple appears to be using a time strategy to tide itself over until the Intel era commences next year. A Fall 7448 G4 upgrade to the PB line might make sense insofar that it would allow room for an iBook upgrade, which is needed most of all. Launching a line of G5 laptops just a few months prior to the first Intel releases wouldn't make much marketing sense

[Randman]

There ain't gonna be a G5 PowerBook. Ever.

[hakstooy]

I really don't think Jobs ever "gave up on a G5 notebook" at all. If IBM was able to announce the low-power chip a month after his Intel keynote, then he darn well knew they were gonna be available pretty soon.

Plus, its not like Apple would have had no idea what these chips were gonna be like, I'd imagine they had some prototypes to use in their PowerBook G5 design/engineering studies. (It ain't like a computer company doesn't get pre-production samples, otherwise it would take them a couple months after the chip announcement to release a machine that uses it.) So they should have mules that are up and chugging along. If this is the case, then it would be a non-effort (relatively) for Apple to plug in the chips as soon as IBM starts shipping them.

Plus, the 64-bit factor is not to be ignored. Longhorn is aimed at 64-bit and is partially intended to "force" PC users to upgrade their hardware. So, much new PC hardware will be 64-bit by mid-late 2006 and nearly all will be by the second half of 2007. This, obviously, leads to the conclusion that Intel will primarily be shipping 64-bit chips by then, for mobile and desktop applications. (People can argue all day about the "needs" of 64-bit, but regardless, the market is going that way and Apple has to keep pace).

Now, if Apple is going to be using Intel chips, then they are gonna have to use the latest and greatest just like everyone else. So Apple would have to do another significant redesign when these chips start cranking out shortly after mid-2006.

So regardless of whether they went with Yonah for next summer, they'd have to do another revision shortly after. So which would be easier and smarter; start producing the G5s that are likely already designed (to a degree) and then switch to the 64-bit Yonah succesor in 2007, thus maximizing sales while maintaining the "cutting edge", or releasing a 7448 PB that will limp into 2006, where a completely new IntelBook must be designed and released, which would last about a year where an entirely new 64-bit IntelBook must be designed?

Either way, Apple is going to have to start a much more frequent revision cycle than they have been used to. The PC market has many more players and Apple now has to keep pace, it no longer enjoys its "apples to oranges" buffer zone.

I'm still far from convincing myself, but I certainly think its a possibility. Especially when one considers the 64-bit factor and what chips Apple intends to be using from Intel.

And thanks for the enlightening comments Rand. Your insights are truly helping me imagine where the line is going and what I should do with my money

[siflippant]

First there was:

Originally Posted by Randman

Down the road, I'll probably get a G5 when they go to 3Ghz and then sell the 17 for the smallest G5PB on offer.

Then there was this:

Originally Posted by Randman

The PowerBooks will never go G5.

What a difference almost a year makes...

[pat++]

Originally Posted by Randman

There ain't gonna be a G5 PowerBook. Ever.

Indeed, it will be a PowerBook i5

[Eug Wanker]

IBM sez the G5 1.6 is 21 W max.