[laxthxdude]

Looking at the online Apple store, it lists the most popular selling items. #3 is the PowerMac G5 Dual 2Ghz.

With that in mind and the fact that another model G5 isn't on the list, it seems the Dual config is by far the most popular and best selling config line. So the question is: If that is the case and the single 1.6 and 1.8 aren't selling as well as the Dual line, what will Apple do with the line up once its revamped in January? Will they go Dual across the board? Will they adjust the price point down furthur for the singles?

Here's my guess:
Jan. 2004 revamp
G5-Single 2.0 Ghz/256Mb/120Gb/$1799
G5-Dual 2.2Ghz/512Mb/180Gb/$2499
G5-Dual 2.4Ghz/1Gb/250Gb/$2999

Hopefully we also get a PowerBook G5; iMac G5 1.6Ghz; eMac 1.6Ghz at this time along with the Cube back for a low end machine sub $999 price point. G5 Cube for $999, who wouldn't love that?

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i dont think G5s go to imac and powerbooks until they figure out how to dissapate the heat better. probably after the chip matures a bit in a full year or so. i can't be wrong right? there is just way too many fans in the Powermac to just predict a G5 in a imac and a powerbook anytime soon.

but look for powerbooks to have top end current G4 processor speeds before it hits G5 status.

Your config looks close imo for PMs though.




here is a prophecy from APU: no more ibooks. look for the 12" to take it's place. if you have seen one in person, you would know that thing is a silver ibook with a g4.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by laxthxdude:
Here's my guess:
Jan. 2004 revamp
G5-Single 2.0 Ghz/256Mb/120Gb/$1799
G5-Dual 2.2Ghz/512Mb/180Gb/$2499
G5-Dual 2.4Ghz/1Gb/250Gb/$2999

Looks good to me for the rev. b machines. Then I'd really like to see the 1.6 and 1.8s go into iMacs, of course. I'm sure Apple's already figuring out how to stick them puppies in there and get the heat out. Man, the G4 and its poopy bus architecture just have to get out of their desktops. eMacs can keep 'em, maybe up them to 1.25s. Next iMacs will probably have 1.25s and 1.4s, and then after that G5s. At least, I hope.

Either way, I won't have money for a G5 probably until rev. c. Whoot, dual 3GHz, baby. 1.5GHz bus. *j�zz*

Good times.

[:XI:]

Originally posted by laxthxdude:
What will Apple do with the line up once its revamped in January?

How do know, I mean, really know they'll be revamped in January? You talk like it's common knowledge.

Will they go Dual across the board? Will they adjust the price point down furthur for the singles?

I suppose going dual across the board would depend on chip availability not just what Steve wants.

Here's my guess:
Jan. 2004 revamp
G5-Single 2.0 Ghz/256Mb/120Gb/$1799
G5-Dual 2.2Ghz/512Mb/180Gb/$2499
G5-Dual 2.4Ghz/1Gb/250Gb/$2999

Guess? you said it.

Hopefully we also get a PowerBook G5; iMac G5 1.6Ghz; eMac 1.6Ghz at this time along with the Cube back for a low end machine sub $999 price point.

What's the power consumption of the G5? What's the power consumption of a G4? This is why the G5 won't get anywhere near the inside of a Powerbook for the moment.
How long did it take to get the G4 into iMacs?
A G5 Cube? You've seen how big the heatsink on a G5 is haven't you?

{edit}

from here:
IBM PPC 970 - 42W @ 1.8GHz
Mot G4+ - 21.3W @ 1.0GHz
Mot G4 - 5.3W @ 500MHz
IBM/Mot G3 - 4W @ 400Mhz

Notice anything?
Actually, now I'm looking at these numbers, I wonder what kind of power/heat/performance stats a 1GHz G5 would give. It might explain why the 15" wasn't updated. Would a 1GHz G5 perform better than a 1GHz G4? Would it consume about the same power? Put out the same amount of heat?
Damn, while trying to blow your arguments out of the water, I think I just sold myself into the Powerbook G5 camp.
{/edit}

G5 Cube for $999, who wouldn't love that?

Not as much as I'd like a G5 Cube for $299. But, it's not like that's going to happen either.

[The Placid Casual]

As I posted in another thread... seems kind of appropriate here as well;

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

I mean, jeez, we don't even have the current line up shipping yet!!

[hmurchison2001]

Sounds good lax. Clearly right now the Dual 2Ghz computer is the best value. I see Apple moving Duals to the midrange Powermac as you do.

IBM should be fabbing future 970s at 90nm by the end of this year or early next year. Hopefully they boost the L2 Ondie cache to 1MB while they are at it.

[laxthxdude]

I for one am interested because with my Dual 1.25G4, I have no reason at the moment to upgrade - its plenty fast enough for me at the moment. I tend to upgrade once a year and the next revs of G5's would interest me.

Secondly, Apple outrighted stated that they would be at 3Ghz in 12 months. Given that they are in the trend of bumping their top of the line to the low end for specs and they they have been updating the PowerMac systems on a 4-6 month rotation for the last 18 months, January is a pretty sound guestimate on an update.

For my purposes, a 2x2.2 G5 would be a pretty terriffic system to go to from a 2x1.25 G4.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by laxthxdude:
I for one am interested because with my Dual 1.25G4, I have no reason at the moment to upgrade - its plenty fast enough for me at the moment. I tend to upgrade once a year and the next revs of G5's would interest me.

Secondly, Apple outrighted stated that they would be at 3Ghz in 12 months. Given that they are in the trend of bumping their top of the line to the low end for specs and they they have been updating the PowerMac systems on a 4-6 month rotation for the last 18 months, January is a pretty sound guestimate on an update.

For my purposes, a 2x2.2 G5 would be a pretty terriffic system to go to from a 2x1.25 G4.

Once a year? That's hell of an upgrade cycle

[Link]

agreed! Besides I think january might bring us dual 3ghz g5s!!!

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Link:
agreed! Besides I think january might bring us dual 3ghz g5s!!!

Then I think you may be very disappointed...

[DrBoar]

To get good performance in the iMac they need a G5 and a good way to separate the tower from the iMac would be to have them all dual. With the price hike it is quite resonable to have that also in the low end. The upgrade to a DVD R that a some years ago was >500 dollars now has a 100 dollar or less price difference (in retail) for Apple is even less.

When the G5 powerbook comes out I think it safe to assume that it will be above 1 GHz in CPU speed or in the performance range of a G4 at 2 GHz or above. That will make the iMac look really slow and over priced

2003 Q3. G4 speed bumps of iMac and PB 1.2-1.5 GHz (L3 caches added ). G5 servers

2004 Q1. iMac and PB G5 around the 1.5 GHz mark. Towers DP1.5-2.0-2.5 or possibly a SP 2.0 as the low end. Other implementation tend to either give very uneven performance balance between the towers and the iMacs or odd CPU clock ratios. I remember when the PowerMacintosh 6500/250 MHz was slower than a 7600/200 MHz while a G3/233 was much faster than either one.

Try to sell a Tower G5 1.6 GHz and iBook 1.6 GHz (G3 no altivec) and a PowerBook G4 1.6 GHz (with L3) and iMac 1.6 GHz G4 (no L3). Then to explain why one G4 is faster then the other and both are faster then the G3 at least in some applications but slower than the G5 in all applications and they all run at 1.6 GHz

In my experience more than 90% of Macintosh users are like windows users in the respect that "1.6 is more then 1.4 and less than 2.0" and that they get that vaccant look after less than a minute of "DDR vs SDR vs DDR but not really", Level 3 caches, buss speed and so on.

The very fact that the G5 will outperform the G4/G3 in a way that never have happened in the Macintosh history (68040/30 to PPC 601 was swamped in emulation) will make the different product groups very unbalanced during the transition, so I hope that this period is as short as possible

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Link:
agreed! Besides I think january might bring us dual 3ghz g5s!!!

go back to spymac. how do you get 3ghz in january?

don't you think we would be lucky to get half of that? January is less than half a year away!


optimism is a good thing but when you're ridiculous you're clouding the minds of the newer people here who might believe you.

[Westfoto]

The one issue that needs to be addressed is the Price of Macs at this time.

The price of computers is supose to go down. These prices are just about the same as they were several years ago +/- just a little. The general public just looks at price and clock speed. Macs are lagging in this area big time.

Yes this has all been said before. This is a big issue for lots of people out there.

just my .02 worth

[Superchicken]

2.5Ghz at the next rev if it's after January, hopefully.

Low power 970s at low Mhz in the portables hopefully, then we'll see what power saving features IBM can build into the thing.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by laxthxdude:
I for one am interested because with my Dual 1.25G4, I have no reason at the moment to upgrade - its plenty fast enough for me at the moment... For my purposes, a 2x2.2 G5 would be a pretty terriffic system to go to from a 2x1.25 G4.

Geez, think of the bump I'm going to get going from a single G4/400!

I really want a faster machine, but I want a dualie, I can't see any reason not to get one considering the huge performance increases they represent vs. single chip machines. OTOH, all rev. A Macs have tended to be flakey, and I don't know if I want to make that kind of investment on the 2x2.0 G5 if they're going to be plagued by issues. Rememeber the modem problem with the duals and OSX? Hell, it took a damn teenager to report what the problem was to Apple, and even then they didn't jump on it right away despite its effects on a large number of people!

[Phil Quinney]

Steve said 3ghz in a year. That means it will be 18 months at least. I would imagine we will se 1.8 single, 2.0 dual and 2.2 dual in January, if anything.

Phil.

[Leonard]

Originally posted by DrBoar:

2004 Q1. iMac and PB G5 around the 1.5 GHz mark.

The G5 Powerbook is not going to happen anytime soon. Apple has already stated this themselves. So you're not going to see a G5 Powerbook in Q1 2004.

I also doubt you'll see a G5 iMac in Q1 2004 as it would have the same heat problems as the Powerbook. Apple does need a G5 iMac soon, but I doubt it'll make it by Q1 2004.

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Hopefully they boost the L2 Ondie cache to 1MB while they are at it.

It's unlikely the cache size is going to increase as that would require a chip redesign. Moving the chip to 90nm technology is one thing, redesigning it is another. Besides, IBM is already designing the PowerPC 980. Why change the 970 when you have a new 980 design already on it's way.

[wulf]

Originally posted by Phil Quinney:
Steve said 3ghz in a year. That means it will be 18 months at least. I would imagine we will se 1.8 single, 2.0 dual and 2.2 dual in January, if anything.

Phil.

Perhaps, but it sounds like you're still thinking in Motorola mode to me. If IBM can ramp the speed fast enough, Apple will ship 'em. They have a vested interest in shipping processors that are as fast as possible, and 2.0, 2.2 & 2.4 doesn't sound unrealistic to me. Especially when most of the G5 launch predictions were topping out at 1.8.

May not happen, but it seems like a reasonable guess.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by wulf:
Perhaps, but it sounds like you're still thinking in Motorola mode to me. If IBM can ramp the speed fast enough, Apple will ship 'em. They have a vested interest in shipping processors that are as fast as possible, and 2.0, 2.2 & 2.4 doesn't sound unrealistic to me. Especially when most of the G5 launch predictions were topping out at 1.8.

May not happen, but it seems like a reasonable guess.

I was thinking the same thing yesterday. 2, 2.2, and 2.4 sounds really reasonable. I doubt Apple and IBM are really only planning on making a 200MHz jump in 6 months, especially if they plan on 3GHz within a year. I bet two revs away and we'll have 3GHz (August next year). This is not Motorola, as noted.

[Commodus]

When Apple says "not anytime soon" for something, we don't know for sure what they actually mean.

G5s don't work in PowerBooks, but only at the current 0.13-micron process. Isn't IBM expecting to move to 0.09-micron chips by around the start of 2004? If so, then having G5s in PowerBooks wouldn't be so far-fetched. They'd draw sufficiently low power and create less heat as current G5s would at the same clock speeds.

[Superchicken]

wish there was a way to find out what a 1Ghz G5 would run at as far as heat and power, and remember the Power Book doesn't HAVE to stay at one inch thick, they COULD allow for a bit more heat, they could even change things up and go

eBook = current iBook, iBook = 12 and 15 inch powerbooks with high power G4s, or really low speed G5s but still more powerful than the ebooks, and with a really sexy design, and power book= 15 and 17 inch while keeping em elegant make em a bit more bulky like the Pismos but with G5s.

[Eug Wanker]

IBM PPC 970 - 42W @ 1.8GHz
Mot G4+ - 21.3W @ 1.0GHz
Mot G4 - 5.3W @ 500MHz
IBM/Mot G3 - 4W @ 400Mhz

Well, IBM's own brochure says 47W @ 1.8 GHz for the PPC 970, and Motorola says 15W @ 1.0 GHz for the G4 7455, and 16.6-18.7W @ 1.3 GHz for the G4 7457.

Others have said that a 1.2 GHz PPC 970 would be about 19W.

Would a 1GHz G5 perform better than a 1GHz G4? Would it consume about the same power? Put out the same amount of heat?

A G5 1 GHz would be similar or possibly mildly slower than a G4 1 GHz for integer apps. For Altivec stuff, they'd be similar. For floating point, a G5 would blow a G4 out of the water.

[Leonard]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:

Others have said that a 1.2 GHz PPC 970 would be about 19W.

Actually, IBM themsleves say a 1.2GHz PPC 970 dissipates 19W. See the second or third last page in the PDF document here http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/t...256C5200611780

So that's only 4W more than what you're saying a 1.0 Ghz G4 uses. Of course Powerbooks are already quite warm these days. So once IBM does get the PowerPC 970 on 0.09 micron we should be set.

[Link]

Yeah I'd hate to spoil you people who just bought a brand spankng new dual 2ghz

Really I don't care. I'm going to be stuck with my g4 for another 3 years and the performance gap will be so pathetically bad then I'll have to build a pc

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Leonard:
Actually, IBM themsleves say a 1.2GHz PPC 970 dissipates 19W. See the second or third last page in the PDF document here http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/t...256C5200611780

So that's only 4W more than what you're saying a 1.0 Ghz G4 uses. Of course Powerbooks are already quite warm these days. So once IBM does get the PowerPC 970 on 0.09 micron we should be set.

Let's ignore the usual power draw for the moment. Would the PowerPC 970 have the right design for use in a laptop?

ie. I don't know what other power saving advantages that the G4 has over the G5, if any.

Does anyone know? It has to be more than simply typical and max power utilization specs. I've asked this before, but I've never gotten a straight answer to this question.

[hmurchison2001]

It's unlikely the cache size is going to increase as that would require a chip redesign. Moving the chip to 90nm technology is one thing, redesigning it is another. Besides, IBM is already designing the PowerPC 980. Why change the 970 when you have a new 980 design already on it's way.

I'd give IBM a %70 that they double the ondie L2. Here is why your assumptions are false.

1. There is an ideal "target" size for a CPU. Transistor count is probably distant in importance to actual physical dimensons. Fab the chip too large and you have thermal, yield/cost issues potentially. Fab too small and you aren't maximizing performance.

2. You are trying to seperate a chip redesign and Process shrink. They are one in the same. You just can't shrink a CPU and hope everything works. A Process shrink almost by definition is a redesign.

3. Remembering that in point #1 we're aiming for a "target" size. We now have more physical space on the chip since our new process shrink has reduced the size of the transistors and traces. We don't want to shrink the chip down in size since our "target" size CPU fits our packaging just right..so we simply toss in double the ondie cache to "fill" up that extra space and get a slight performane boost in the process. Adding L2 cache in a process shrink should be damn near free. It's filler basically. I doubt Prescott or the new IBM G3 will need to utilize it's full 1MB cache but why not? The penalty is almost nil.

Here is the 130nm G4 7457 L2 cache doubled to 512

Here is the IBM 750GX G3 same process 1MB ondie Cache

[DrBoar]

The notion that a 1 Ghz G4 is on par on a 1 GHz 970 on integers and only trailing behind in fpu is odd
A 1 GHz 970 would have spec marks of 521/524 int/fpu a G4 at the same speed 294/175... Even at the former top speed 1.42 GHz the scores are only 418/248.

Concidering the history of Motorola I find it more likely that we soon can see a 1 GHz IBM 970 than a 1.8 GHz G4 soon. As far as iMac goes the heat is not an issue if they really want to put the G5 in there One way would be to add a 1" high metal ribbon under the half dome, it would add both a lot of volume and diffrent look for the G5 without any real retooling of the case. If they were really desperate Apple could have an external poewr brick as they had with the cube. The powerbook is far more difficult, adding 1" thinkness would not be a good thing

Imagine that there is a "surprising" delay of the next G4 iteration and the G4 s stuck below 1.5 GHz for a year. Will Apple try to gain market share by peddling 1.2 GHz iMacs in 2004

The towers were those most in need of the 970, the servers are next in line, right? But what is next in line after the servers if not the iMac

[kkant]

Originally posted by DrBoar:
The notion that a 1 Ghz G4 is on par on a 1 GHz 970 on integers and only trailing behind in fpu is odd
A 1 GHz 970 would have spec marks of 521/524 int/fpu a G4 at the same speed 294/175... Even at the former top speed 1.42 GHz the scores are only 418/248.

The 1gig G5 scores may not be that good in a laptop, because in a laptop we will not have all the advantages of the fast FSB/RAM and other fast I/O chips due to power issues. They may still be better than a 1gig G4. But we really can't say that for sure because we cannot extrapolate G5/G4 laptop performance ratios from the desktop figures.

[CIA]

As this thread drifts closer to the powerbook forum......

Don't forget, if the powerbook gets a G5, it needs an all new motherboard, so we may see a significant change in form factor....

[mikerally]

My predictions are a little more conservative,

January 2004:
- Entry model, Single 2.0Ghz G5
- Midrange model, Dual 2.0Ghz G5
- Top model, Dual 2.4Ghz G5

The 2.0Ghz processors will become very cheap in 6 months time when IBM manufactures enough to outweigh demand.

It's important for the entire pro line to clear the 2Ghz mark, since even consumer PCs seem to start around that mark these days.
I guess the good news is the PC industry has slowed down a little, just a little jump for the Pentium IV from 3.0Ghz to 3.2Ghz in about 6 months - I doubt we'll see it clearing 4Ghz by the end of this year, which will be a good thing in letting Apple catch up a little. I think it will take a few more years for Apple to repair the damage inflicted by Motorola in 2000 (500Mhz cap for over 16 months, good grief).

Finally, it's been widely reported (rumors or otherwise) that the current G5 processor can reach up, and has even sampled at 2.4Ghz - IBM will have 6 months to perfect their manufacturing process to yield faster processor and build up a steady supply of 2.4Ghz G5 processors.

I think the 3.0Ghz Processor Apple mentioned is the 0.9 micron IBM PPC 970 which I'm sure IBM will have ready next year sometime (probably exactly one year from now like Jobs said).

[CubieDubbie]

G5 Cube, right????????? You could not possibly do it. no way within $999.00. The Cube is too small for one thing so how would cool it, as we no G5 laptops yet. 8 AGP video card, where would you fit this puppy???????? Serial ATA hard drive would be another heat issue most likely in the small an enclosure with no appreciable fan or fans in it. There are a lot of issues that make this one highly unlikely!!!!

[hmurchison2001]

The next revision of Powermacs should have 90nm 970s in at least the midrange and top models. IBMs East Fishkill fab is gearing up for 90nm processors. Intel is going to be delivering Prescott at 90nm starting at 3.4Ghz. I don't expect IBM to be more than a Quarter behind Intel. I also expect them to match Prescott's ondie 1MB Cache.

I don't think a G5 Cube is coming but it is possible with say a 90nm 1.4Ghz processor.

I think IBM could hit 2.4-2.5 970s at 130nm but that would cause undue thermal issues that would be best avoided by moving the Procs to 90nm.