[jubbly]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30993.html

i'm saying nothing, but i REALLY wanna see those flames!

[D'Espice]

To be honest, I don't care. It's up to Apple to make that decision and if we can get faster G4 processors then why not? It doesn't mean the PPC970 won't come, does it?

[dencamp]

imac & ibook will stay Moto for at least 12-18 months (my guess), so a faster G4 in the consumer machines isn't a bad thing.

[Simon]

It doesn't matter if we stick with the G4 on all Macs or not. Faster G4s are good.

What I'd like to know is if Moto can really get this tech into G4 within the time frame they promise.

I'm ready to bet it will take them at least three times as long as they claim now, just like they boasted about the G4 and then had to watch everybody else take over because they screwed up.

I'd rather have them be conservative and deliver (like IBM) than bullshit around all the time and then chicken out when time comes. I hate them.

[OreoCookie]

I believe it's too late for Moto ...

[Simon]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I believe it's too late for Moto ...

Are you sure we should really believe that? I mean, just because we hope it to be like that, does it mean we can believe it?

[D'Espice]

I don't think it's too late - like dencamp said: There's always need for another processor besides the PPC970. The PowerBooks and PowerMacs are going to be PPC970-powered and the iProducts will stay G4-powered for quite a while - I'd love to see the G4 iBook w/ 1.6 GHz. That'd be terrific!

And does it really matter whether it's G4 or PPC970 as long as it's faster? And now that Motorola has competition I don't even think it'll take them thrice as long as planned - maybe only twice

[Eug]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
I don't think it's too late - like dencamp said: There's always need for another processor besides the PPC970. The PowerBooks and PowerMacs are going to be PPC970-powered and the iProducts will stay G4-powered for quite a while - I'd love to see the G4 iBook w/ 1.6 GHz. That'd be terrific!

And does it really matter whether it's G4 or PPC970 as long as it's faster? And now that Motorola has competition I don't even think it'll take them thrice as long as planned - maybe only twice

I still say the PowerBooks will be G4s, esp. if Motorola can come thru with this rumoured lower power version of the 7457. The iBooks will simply be slower G4s with less features.

[terrancew_hod]

I think at least one powerbook will debut with a 970; but with the price drops of the 12" and 15", I would think the 12" would get a faster G4 and the 15" will have the 970 and the new look.

But Motorola may end up powering the low end for a while; but eventually I would think IBM will take over. IBM has their chip sets (970,Gobi) ready to go in the near future, while Motorola is just announcing things. I think the failed promise of the G5 from them created some bad blood. A faster G4 would be fine, but they would really have to open up the system bus for apple to really change any long term plans...

[Seamus]

Posted: 03/06/2003.

This is three months old people. Case closed.

[D'Espice]

Originally posted by Seamus:
Posted: 03/06/2003.

This is three months old people. Case closed.

Uh you're right... but ain't that British? DD/MM/YYYY

[Catfish_Man]

I just read a Moto PDF stating that they have plans for 2GHz dual core G4s with RapidIO and DDRI/DDRII support

Read the first PDF here: http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps...DmN784YwGW3D66

[Leonis]

If this article is true then the recent batch of PowerMacs are using overclocked chips?

[slider]

You know what, Moto had its chance. I kept reading how Apple was not Moto's key client and it did not feel it needed to advance the chip or invest significant monies in the chip just of Apple. Well, that is how it goes. Apple may not have been Moto's biggest client, but now they are about to loss the account. IBM is wooing Apple and they have a plan, Apple needs to get on board with her or switch processors all together. Moto has been sitting on it's a$$ and they should lose b/c of it.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Seamus:
Posted: 03/06/2003.

This is three months old people. Case closed.

Only if you're American. Here in the UK we do dates in the logical order, dd/mm/yyyy (units incrementing in length), not assbackwards like you guys

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Leonis:
If this article is true then the recent batch of PowerMacs are using overclocked chips?

It looks like it. It would explain come with ludicrously large heatsinks and the MDDs come with a copious smattering of ventilation holes (Motorola seems to only sell up to 1GHz G4s).

I think that this news is too little, too late for Motorola, though.

[jubbly]

Originally posted by Seamus:
Posted: 03/06/2003.

This is three months old people. Case closed.

theregister is a british website therefore 03/06 = 3rd june. do pay attention 007.

[Leonis]

Even Moto does have new G4s now but if the cost is higher than IBM's Apple will still be going for the GOBI/w AltiVec chip for their laptop or consumer desktops.....I think

[3.1416]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Only if you're American. Here in the UK we do dates in the logical order, dd/mm/yyyy (units incrementing in length), not assbackwards like you guys

The really logical order would be yyyy/mm/dd so they could be sorted easily.

[cenutrio]

What about prices...

It seems that the new PPC970 will be a 30 % cheaper than the MT G4. I do not see Apple keeping the G4 at a higher price for the consumer Macs.

I am sure Apple will use IBM G3+ for consumer market, updated with altivec (if they 're going to use it in the PPC970, why not in the G3). Besides the G3s have currently 13 micron technology.

They would automatically use higher frecuency G3+ chips (the G3 used in iBooks and iMacs were very modest in frecuency clock to avoid higher numbers than the G4s).

[Superchicken]

if this can be out in a few days and tide us till the 970 can be used then fine, if apple uses this instead of the 970... I'm gona have to learn how to use Linux

[Coxy]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
It looks like it. It would explain come with ludicrously large heatsinks and the MDDs come with a copious smattering of ventilation holes (Motorola seems to only sell up to 1GHz G4s).

I think that this news is too little, too late for Motorola, though.

The G4 CPUs in PowerMacs are *not* overclocked.

[michaelb]

Originally posted by 3.1416:
The really logical order would be yyyy/mm/dd so they could be sorted easily.

It is when using the SI convention.

I wish everyone would just use a three letter month, would save a lot of confusion:

1 Jan 2003
Sep 11, 2001

Not hard.

[DrBoar]

Yes the logical date today is 030604 (or in extenso 20030604) as the dates are written in Sweden

Regarding the 20% speed bump of G4. If the 1.42 GHz G4 is hopelessly behind the Pentium 4 and AMD a 1.7 GHz will be as well. So while faster G4 is a good thing its usefulness for Apple is a stopgap measure. The track record of Motorolas delivery of CPUs in a timely fashion do suggest that they might not even be that

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Coxy:
The G4 CPUs in PowerMacs are *not* overclocked.

You are correct and I wish this rumor would die. Whether it dies on 06-04-2003 or 04-06-2003, I don't care.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Coxy:
The G4 CPUs in PowerMacs are *not* overclocked.

That's what I always used to think... But Apple has been known to underclock machines artificially in the past, and the 1.42Ghz comes with a bigger heatsink than the 1.25Ghz by some orders of magnitude, doesn't it? I haven't seen conclusive proof either way, but I'm saying that it looks like Apple might be overclocking.

[BrunoBruin]

Oh my God yes, can we please put an end to this overclocking nonsense? The part numbers from Moto are correct for the clock speeds. They are engraved right on the chip. The 1.25GHz towers are numbered RX1250. My guess is that they are higher-voltage variants that Moto has produced especially for Apple.

There is a line of thought, however, that the current 1GHz tower has an UNDERCLOCKED 1.25GHz chip as someone pulled their heat sink and the part number matched the 1.25.

[drHo]

hmm..faster g4's would be good right? i mean the 970 are a better chip alogether but..isnt the real factor keeping the g4's down is the slow system bus and not real DDR Ram? so lets says moto fixes this..wouldnt this help the g4's a lot? i mean i really want to see the 970's in top end macs but updated motherboards with faster g4's would be a good thing for ibooks/imacs

[Graymalkin]

The G4 is a much better processor than people give it credit for despite its low core clock and performance compared to Intel and AMD chips clocked 50-100% faster. It has the possibility to being clocked very high but that doesn't necessarily mean Apple is the target customer for those chips. The presentation slides Motorola spit out regarding the G4 were advertising its low power consumption and the ability of the AltiVec core to do some serious heavy lifting at a DSP or network processor. Vendors looking for a new processor for their routers, switches, and the like want powerful chips with low power dissapation. The G4 has the ability to do that and Motorola's presentation was extolling that virtue and giving a glimpse at its future development.

The G4 is a good processor to sell to router and switch manufacturers because it allows a lot of consolidation on the logic board. Some systems have dedicated DSPs for some of their fuctions along with a host processor for management of the DSPs. The G4 can act as a host processor with a pretty fast DSP on its back. Cisco is already using the G4 for just this situation. For this reason the G4 was compared on the charts to other processors typically used in routers and switches, not in chips used in PCs.

Apple keeping Motorola as their main supplier is a little far fetched at this point. Motorola has shown little interest in Apple's business and has stated repeatedly Apple's needs are not its main concern.

IBM has a vested interest in PowerPC workstations as it is and it looks like they are wanting to expand that business. Apple's future with the PowerPC ISA are pretty complementary to IBM's roadmaps. Their customers, even with both companies potentially selling 970 based Unix workstations (Linux and AIX for IBM and OSX for Apple) their customers are very very different. IBM wants to sell their POWER based systems to their RS/6000 and IntelliStation customers and integrate the services on the OSes to do that. IBM doesn't necessarily want to sell a couple IntelliStations to somebody and have that be it. They want to consult and supply that company. Apple isn't in that business and thus doesn't directly compete with it.

Apple is more interested in the people IBM does not want to sell to, the people who want to buy some computers and be done with the process. Apple's looking to sell to the group wanting an all-in-one solution to their video editing or DTP publishing needs. Their products are aimed at this sector of the workstation market, a sector far removed from IBM's Unix clients. Apple using IBM chips seems very likely when you look at the sort of markets the two companies cater to. Motorola just wants to be left alone with their integrated processors and not have to worry about beating Intel's latest and greatest room warmer.

[DrBoar]

I do not think Motorola will be left alone. If IBM can sell 970 at a lower price than the G4 of Motorola and then offer 2-4 times the performance for the same heat output then CISCO might look their way too

Motorola take note:
If I want to upgrade my old G4 I need a CPU for that, I can not upgrade it with a roadmap or an intention to manufacture a faster G4

[tooki]

Originally posted by dencamp:
imac & ibook will stay Moto for at least 12-18 months (my guess), so a faster G4 in the consumer machines isn't a bad thing.

The iBook uses IBM chips, and always has. Only the very first G3 Macs used Motorola G3 chips. Once IBM created copper G3 chips (which use significantly less power and create much less heat), Apple switched to IBM for them and hasn't turned back.

Originally posted by 3.1416:
The really logical order would be yyyy/mm/dd so they could be sorted easily.

AFAIK, that is how dates are written in Japan (among others). And computer scientists often do use that notation, e.g. in HTML filenames.

(Internally, our Macs store dates as a gigantic number, namely, the number of seconds elapsed since a certain baseline date (Jan 19, 1904, I think). I think Mac OS X uses UNIX time, counted from sometime in 1970.

tooki

[Simon]

Originally posted by tooki:
The iBook uses IBM chips, and always has. Only the very first G3 Macs used Motorola G3 chips. Once IBM created copper G3 chips (which use significantly less power and create much less heat), Apple switched to IBM for them and hasn't turned back.

And I suppose we have reason to believe it will stay that way.

There has been talk about Gobi (a successor to the IBM 750FX used now) which is faster, drains less power and has Altivec (?).

If Apple could get that into iBooks (and maybe even the eMacs), the entry-level would be covered nicely while PowerMacs and Xserves and maybe Xstations (?) get the 970.

The big question remains, what about the PowerBook and iMac. Both have small cases with limited cooling capabilities and have very low power requirements. I doubt the first batch of 970s will go into a PowerBook, but maybe a later version? I mean, what sense would it make to underclock a 970 just so that they can say a 970 is in the AlBook.

What about the iMac? I'm afraid that the iMac will stay the G4 Mac. Maybe with a 7457 or 7457-RM. Of course I'd prefer much more that it stays the way it is now: The iMac gets the same CPU the PowerMacs have (970) and it's clock is equal to the smallest PowerMac.

Now, what about economics? Can Apple have three different CPUs on their boards or is that a financial nightmare? Should we get ready to see more variety in the CPU sockets or is the whole line going to be streamlined to one CPU? And if it's the latter, are we talking about a transition period of two/three months or of 18 months? And what's going on in the meantime?

[Coxy]

Originally posted by DrBoar:
I do not think Motorola will be left alone. If IBM can sell 970 at a lower price than the G4 of Motorola and then offer 2-4 times the performance for the same heat output then CISCO might look their way too

IBM has given no indication that they're gonna chase Motorola for the MIPS/Watt crown.
With the ~40W power consumption figures which we keep hearing about, they've got a way to go yet.

[Staatkunde]

Moto can sell their G4s to GigaDesigns, Powerlogix, etc.. so those of use with current G4 moto boxes can continue to upgrade. Or we can all buy new IBM -970 boxes and screw moto for putting Apple so far behind in the MHZ race. I'm voting for option #2 myself.

[ryarber]

Don't you just love this quote from the article?

"Our goal is to stay with a frequency doubling every 18 months or so, and get into the 2GHz range for PowerPC, but at very low power consumption of, say, 20W," said Dirk Wristers, director of device/integration for Motorola's MOS-13 wafer fab, according to an EE Times report.

Since when have they met their stated "goal" of frequency doubling every 18 months. I believe it has been at least 3 years since the 500MHz G4's were introduced. That is pretty funny.