Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PPC G5 On The Way -- And Fast

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the technodiversity dept.

Hardware 526

Sulka writes: "The Register has a report claiming the PPC G5 CPU is ready for production and will be launched by Apple in January. Initial batch would include a 1.6GHz version with 2GHz to follow. 64 bit architecture, 10 stage pipeline, Silicon-On-Insulator and other buzzwords are mentioned." Maybe this will mean cheaper G4s for those of us who buy computers somewhat lower on the food chain, too.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Again? (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309015)

You can love me now!

Re:Again? (-1)

mackga (990) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309025)

dooD! what's happening?


btw, here's the obligatory /. SUCKS comment. michael is a shit-eating faggot.

Re:Again? (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309046)

Not too much... I have to regain my position as the king of FP!.

Did you open the new facility in Las Vegas yet?

Re:Again? (-1)

mackga (990) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309060)

you R king of the fp! on /., no question. no, the animal fuckery and group sex emporium is on hold pending the requisite licenses and health checks on the staff.

I have opened your infidel mother (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309067)

When you eat her next you will taste me!!

You and your pig dog friends will burn with the purifying fires of Allah!

Trolling for Allah since 1492!

PS Michael and Kats are the best thing since C4!!!

Re:I have opened your infidel mother (-1)

mackga (990) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309099)

thanks for the nice display of total mornoic idiocy! you are such a fine example for pox-ridden slobbering mental deficiency that we are all the better for it. good job, shitstain.

Why don't you let your GF defend herself!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309119)

OMG!!! You are such a fag!!!

Just because your dick is in his mouth doesn't mean he can't respond!!!

Re:Why don't you let your GF defend herself!! (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309185)

Talking like a cast member of "Friends" would be be a more accurate indicator of ones sexual preference.

Good job, fag.

Re:I have opened your infidel mother (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309141)

Would you shut the fuck up, you dumb-assed motherfucker? You have the mental capacity of a pb&j sandwich.

You have never, ever, had sexual relations with a woman that was not in your immediate family.

Re:Again? (-1)

Pr0n K1ng (160688) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309260)

C0ngr4ts 0n th3 3xc3ll3nt f1rst p0st, d00d! However, I have not been monitoring slashdot lately, and so have not had the opportunity to continue my reign as the K1ng 0f th3 FP. I will not be giving up my crown, you wanker!

WOOHOO!!! (0, Redundant)

alta (1263) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309018)

Hell yeah!!! I need linux on that please!!!

Re:WOOHOO!!! (1)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309068)

Well, it will likely come with a Unix already installed. But, of course, it would be nice if they offered the box without an OS so we could all save $100 or whatever (how come no one ever calls it the "Apple Tax"?) if we're planning to install something like YDL.

Re:WOOHOO!!! (2)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309245)

how come no one ever calls it the "Apple Tax"

Simple. When you buy an Apple, you're choosing to buy the entire kit & kaboodle. Apple has never forced anyone else to use their OS.

MS has. Gateway, Compaq, HP, et al couldn't sell a consumer PC w/o Windows if they tried.

Re:WOOHOO!!! (3, Informative)

Noer (85363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309259)

Nobody calls it the apple tax because Apple isn't charging licensing fees to another company that they pass off to you. Apple's per-unit cost for bundling Mac OS with a computer is zero, because they develop the OS and the hardware.

It'd be like trying to get a Palm without PalmOS.

Or it'd be like complaining that a Microsoft-brand PC came with Windows, if Microsoft sold its own brand of PCs.

You couldn't save any money by not having Mac OS bundled, because Apple doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to anybody for including Mac OS; thus no cost is being passed on to you.

On the other hand, Apple also doesn't make you type in annoying 25-character license keys to use the OS that came with your computer.

Re:WOOHOO!!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309275)

I'm sure that Yellow Dog Linux, who currently sell G4's that are non-apple, will sell g5's, shipped with yellow dog linux pre-installed.

OS X (3, Troll)

ekrout (139379) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309022)

Hmmm, maybe these new b0xen will actually be able to run OS X and all its interface dandies without feeling like you're on a an old 386. The windows transparency, although sexy, is really rough on the machines; I have yet to see an Apple machine that can run OS X smoothly.

Re:OS X (2)

Noer (85363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309035)

My dual 533MHz G4 runs OS X 10.0.4 as smooth as silk, even window resizing for the most part. 10.1 is what'll really help that on slower machines.

Yes, I think a G5 would make OS X really kick some wintel ass.

Re:OS X (2, Funny)

Optic (6803) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309109)

Yeah, all it needs is some native apps. :)

Re:OS X (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309201)

Funny, yes and ironic to, coming from a Linux zealot.

Re:OS X (2)

Noer (85363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309207)

Do you mean the ones that are available already, like Omniweb, Stone Studio, Appleworks, BBEdit, Filemaker Pro, and tons of Unix apps?

Or the ones that'll be available this fall, like MS Office?

Re:OS X (3, Insightful)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309038)

OS X 10.1 will be released sometime this month. I've seen beta versions, and it's kickin'. Look for that smoothness you're so desparately in need of. Look for a faster GUI, faster application boot time, more organized dock (some things have been moved), and other improvements.

Re:OS X (2)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309047)

But _why_ should window transparency be an issue? That's all taken care of by the video card. Sure, it makes a blit slower, but we're still talking "insanely fast" here. Bits of interface fluff should not be hogging up significant portions of the CPU.

Re:OS X (4, Informative)

barryblack (31922) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309073)

The problem is that mac os x uses display technology that is not easily accelerated by current graphics cards. A lot of screen drawing is done with vectors and bezier curves that are closer to the type of acceleration that a 3d card provides and not a 2d card. However, until recently, 3d cards weren't easily made to run custom routines. You had to rely on a set of standard calls. The geforce 3 changed this. I'm sure once those drivers mature, os x will really shine. On a side note, I run os x every day on a powerbook G4. While I wouldn't call the us fast, it is very usalbe. 10.1 will only improve on this.

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309053)

Much of that is just unoptimized GUI. For example, live dragging of the windows on my G3 / 400 is smooth as glass, it's just resizing that's horribly painful. 10.1 seems to fix much of that.

What I'd like to see is the Java performance, since these will be nice server machines.

Re:OS X (0)

picasso (214) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309054)

You haven't played at a dual 800 G4 it seems.
It's a bit on the expencive side, but damn fast.

It's not bad on the 867... (1)

catseye (96076) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309055)

OS X (10.0.4) runs pretty stealthy on my 867MHz G4 with half a gig of RAM. True, it's not as crisp as plain-old MacOS, but it's not as crufty as the public beta was, that's for sure.

Combined with the speed improvements that are supposedly coming with the 10.1 upgrade, I think any of the current model G4's should be able to run the Aqua UI at a completely usable speed. I'll agree with you, however, that it really pounds any G3-class machine. The iMacs won't be suitable OS X boxen until they have a G4.

-A.

Not so fat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309198)

I have an iBook 500 (new version), and OSX just isn't that bad at all. 128MB of RAM, and it's pretty usable. The only time I have problems is wnen the sucker runs out of memory, and goes to the page file for more space. I'm going to stick another 512 in it (soon, hopefully), and I'm sure that it will rock. The only problem I have with OSX now is the fact that I cannot watch DVDs in it yet, and that there are relativly few native apps that are not extreme beta available for it. IE just likes to lock up left and right, sometimes bringing the whole system down.

Fine on mine too (1)

denjin (115496) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309281)

I have an 867 with 768 RAM and a Geforce3. Runs just fine here. I can't find anything that I consider slow, aside from app launch times sometimes. Sure, 9.x is a little faster, but I can't complain with OS X.

Christina

Re:OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309081)

The problem is OSX need tons of RAM. I don't think Apple even ships enough base RAM on it's high end machines. 256MB is the minimum you should have. 10.1 should help the problem too.

Re:OS X (2)

stripes (3681) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309110)

Hmmm, maybe these new b0xen will actually be able to run OS X and all its interface dandies without feeling like you're on a an old 386.

Actually you can do that right now. I have a laptop, and OSX was pretty slugish on it. I bought another 512M of RAM (bringing it to 640M) and it runs much much much faster.

Granted that is pretty pigish, but at least you can fix it now. Apparently OS X 10.1 will be a lot faster as well (according to Apple at least), but we will know that later this month one way or another.

MOD THE PARENT DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309114)

Dear ekrout,

Using the term "b0xen" does not make you "l33t" or "c00l". In fact it, it makes you seem like a scriptkiddie or some other form of loser. Please consult a dictionary in the future if you are unfamiliar with the plural form of a word.

Sincerely,
The death to the use of "boxen" and "unixen" guy

PS: I have seen OS X (10.0.4) running on a demo machine at a local computer store and it seemed quite snappy to me. From reports of 10.1 developer releases it will be even faster still.

Re:MOD THE PARENT DOWN (0)

MrDolby (303452) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309224)

Har Har Har, U are a l05er for making fun 0f 1337.

Re:OS X (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309230)

he gets +1 interesting because he has never seen osx running on a current machine, and has no clue?

It's not the transparency (2)

burris (122191) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309246)

My 25mhz 68040-based NeXTstation Color does alpha channel transparency just fine, thank you. There is something else about Mac OSX that makes it so slow. fwiw, the current release is very much still beta quality and X.1 is supposed to be quite a bit more optimized.

burris

OK I'll say it first... (2, Funny)

NewbieSpaz (172080) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309026)

Imagine a Beowulf... ah never mind.
;)

I'd like to get my hands on a (hopefully cheaper) G4, and put Yellow Dog on it. I love YD on my G3, it flies...

Re:OK I'll say it first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309065)

BTW, how are Macs for dual-booting? I've never really bothered since I prefer to run Linux on x86 boxen, but I'm probably going to sell off all my old hardware and get a shiny new Powerbook. I've noticed that the newer G4's will let you choose which drive to start from if you hold Option, would it be that easy to boot Linux?

Re:OK I'll say it first... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309143)

Dear AC,

Using the term "b0xen" does not make you "l33t" or "c00l". In fact it, it makes you seem like a scriptkiddie or some other form of loser. Please consult a dictionary in the future if you are unfamiliar with the plural form of a word.

Sincerely,

The death to the use of "boxen" and "unixen" guy

PS: Macs dual boot quite well; bootX does a pretty good job.

Re:OK I'll say it first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309274)

Yes because we all know sticking to the dictionary and not using slang makes people cool. Don't be such a dork.

"*BSD is dying" trolls are dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309040)

"*BSD is dying" trolls are dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered troll community when last month IDC confirmed that "*BSD is dying" trolls accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Slashdot posts. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that "*BSD is dying" trolls have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. "*BSD is dying" trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive trolling test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict the future of "*BSD is dying" trolls. The hand writing is on the wall: "*BSD is dying" trolls face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for "*BSD is dying" trolls because "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" trolls. As many of us are already aware, "*BSD is dying" trolls continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Troll leader Anonymous Coward states that there are 7000 goatse.cx trolls. How many ascii art trolls are there? Let's see. The number of goatse.cx versus ascii art posts on Slashdot is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 ascii art trolls. "*BSD is dying" posts on Slashdot are about half of the volume of ascii art posts. Therefore there are about 700 "*BSD is dying" trolls. A recent article put "first post" at about 80 percent of the troll market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "first post" trolls. This is consistent with the number of first posts.

All major surveys show that "*BSD is dying" trolls have steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If "*BSD is dying" trolls are to survive at all it will be among troll hobbyist dabblers. "*BSD is dying" continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, "*BSD is dying" is dead.

Allahs all mighty PENIS at work (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309049)

Here in Arizona pumping american pussy!!

So long and thanks for all the fish yankee fire pancakes

Trolling for Allah since 1492!

PS Send email to your sister, she's next!

Re:Allahs all mighty PENIS at work (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309092)

I want to suck allahs all mighty PENIS.

Mmmm... (2, Funny)

krugdm (322700) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309050)

2 Ghz of PPC goodness. Ahhh. Now, to start figuring out how to convince my wife why I need one...

Convince her?!?!?! Ha HA you pussy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309102)

Are you a man or a Linux geek!!

Just tell the fat bitch what you want!!

Don't be a fucking Nancy boy!

You are a whipped piece of shit, stand up for yourself you spineless worm

P.S. PPC???? Doest it do Windows?? If it doesn't then it sucks ass!!

Re:Mmmm... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309138)

You don't need to convince him, just rape him up the ass until he agrees.

puts Apple in a bind? (5, Interesting)

imac.usr (58845) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309052)

Hmmmm. This might actually represent a problem for Apple. Consider:
1. Their fastest processor is an 867 MHz G4.
2. Their fastest machine is a dual-800 MHz G4.
3. When the G5 is available, the slowest speed going to the desktop market according to the article is 1.2 GHz.
4. The rumor (unlikely as it sounds) is that there'll be an announcement at MacWorld Expo San Francisco of a G5-powered Mac.

Now, if you knew a machine that was 50% faster in clockspeed than the current model was just a month or two away, wouldn't you want to wait? I would. And that's pretty much the last thing Apple really needs at the mement.

Perhaps they should start with the slower speed models? Even an 800 MHz G5 should be faster than the current G4s, if coupled with a better-performing chipset/bus.

Re:puts Apple in a bind? (2)

passion (84900) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309107)

That's why Steve Jobs is so secretive, and doesn't like to spill the beans until they're ready. When Apple has been ready in the past, they had the store open and taking pre-orders on the new merchandise within hours of the public announcement.



Perhaps that's what they were going to announce at Apple Expo 2001 in Paris on Sept. 26, though had to cancel due to the attacks. yahoo.com [yahoo.com]


Re:puts Apple in a bind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309130)

price mark downs. i bet a lot of apple retailers start offering deals etc (if they don't already) soon to sell off their old machines.

That's what happened when I went to look for an iBook.. people had these neato deals.. and then the day I went to get my iBook there were entirely new ones on apple's store.

Re:puts Apple in a bind? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309135)

See, we try not to suggest things like this because:

a) they might take the advice
b) we're looking for leaps in advancement here

We want the hardware manufacturers to make as much progress as possible in the shortest amount of time.

~LoudMusic

MHz != speed. Remember the snail commercial? (2)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309243)

When the G5 is available, the slowest speed going to the desktop market according to the article is 1.2 GHz.

MHz != performance. Nothing else matters but the time you spend waiting for an operation to complete.

Apple advertises the PowerPC G4 as being 100% faster than P6-core (Celeron/PIII) processors at a given clock rate, which is about right for digital signal processing applications such as Photoshop filters. In actual use, this figure is closer to 50% faster, making Apple's fastest processor (867 MHz G4) equivalent to a 1.3 GHz PIII. Yes, Apple's offerings are a bit slow right now, but it's not as bad as is commonly thought, and the G5 will easily beat P4.

Booyah! (1)

VladTheBad (178747) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309056)

And there WILL BE much rejoicing if Mot can pull it off. If Mot botches this one.... well, then they suck.

Assuming Mot won't botch this.... then Apple needs to not botch the memory controller.
I'm hoping for 4 channel, 64 bits per channel DDR, running at 133mhz (PC2100 spec DIMM's). Possibly put 4 DIMM slots per channel on the high end. Allow users to install ram in singles.... but note that it wont be as fast as installing in pairs... possibly have all configs ship with at least 2x128mb DIMMs.... (Heck, on the high end config, they should ship 4x256)

Hopefully my dual 533 will become Hideously obsolete this winter.....

Re:Booyah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309101)

I think every Mac user is praying that Motorola won't mess this one up. If they do like they did with the G4, Apple can just forget gaining any marketshare, or even keeping what they've already got.

This is a goodthing (1)

esper_child (515754) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309059)

I hope this brings down the price on that dual-G4 desktop with superdrive in it. Damn those are fine peices of computing power, i need one with OSX on it. First I must get that, attach my tablet to it and off i go into the picture editing craze i went into when i got my 1.1 Ghz PC that I have now. Also, does anyone know of software on either PC or Mac that will let me use the tablet to replace my keyboard (thus making my desk look super-spiff and empty)?
On a side note: If anyone is looking at tablets out there, yes it is worth the extra money to get a Wacom tablet instead of the other ones that compUSA et al seem to have. AFAIK, Wacom is the only good brand I have seen in the computer stores around here for such devices.

Wow, 2Ghz on a PPC (1)

Uttles (324447) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309061)

PPC at 2 GHz, I'd love to see a comparison test with one of those and a 2Ghz P4, it would be laughable. Looks like I'm going to be getting back into the world of apple when my present comp goes obsolete. Anybody know any good links to some info about using OS X (for the regular stuff, email, web browsing, HTML editing, playing games, text editing, etc)?

Re:Wow, 2Ghz on a PPC (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309124)

E-Mail: There's a bundled application called Mail that handles email tasks well. It does POP, IMAP, and Unix accounts easily. I've actually been happy with the application.

Web browsing: IE 5.1 is bundled (final version as of 10.1, shipping later this month) but OmniWeb and iCab are two great alternatives that certainly hold their own. Opera is also being developed natively and is currently at beta 3, afaik.

I use BBEdit for my HTML editing, and you can't go wrong with it. It's one of the best text editors available for coders, with syntax coloring for any language, as well as built-in support for grep in the search/replace functions.

Games have always been a Macintosh weak spot, but with id doing near parallel development with Windows counterparts, and other game developers starting to see Macs as a real gaming platform, look for more and more games to be released in the coming months. I know Black + White and Max Payne are on the way, best sellers like The Sims, Unreal Tournament, Q3:A and Alice are all available now.

Re:Wow, 2Ghz on a PPC (1)

sir_nas (261676) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309127)

Looks like I'm going to be getting back into the world of apple when my present comp goes obsolete.

computers are obsolete 5 minutes after purchase ;P

Re:Wow, 2Ghz on a PPC (2, Informative)

pressman (182919) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309147)

Everything you'd really need to know you can find here [apple.com] . There is a surprisingly large number of apps out there for OS X. VersionTracker [versiontracker.com] has a really large and up to date database of apps coming over to OS X.

some good mac sites (2, Informative)

stego (146071) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309163)

macosxhints.com, macosx.com, macobserver.com ... check out the forums on any of these for about anything you might need to know

What about the G4s 128 bits? (0)

gowmc (457451) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309070)

If the G4 is 128 bit, that means the G5 is one step down. Can't we get a faster processor without dropping to 64 bits and extending the pipeline?

Re:What about the G4s 128 bits? (3, Interesting)

pressman (182919) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309090)

The G4 is a 32-bit chip with a 128-bit vector co-processing unit.

The really cool thing about the G5 is that it will be a 64-bit chip with complete backwards compatibility with 32-bit applications.

Re:What about the G4s 128 bits? (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309091)

The G4 is not 128. The G4 has a 128 bit vector processing unit which processes the "Altevec" commands that optimized applications can use to get a performance increase. The rest of the chip is still 32 bit.

For those who don't keep up with motorola or Apple, Altevec is the same idea as MMC was for the pentium pro, only slightly better (which isn't saying much considering MMC).

Re:What about the G4s 128 bits? (1)

pressman (182919) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309118)

I know people hate it when Photoshop is used as a benchmark, but the AltiVec co-processor really makes PS fly... especially on a dual 800! I can;t wait to see a native OS X version of PS running on a dul G4!

404 link.... (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309072)

Hey, I'm getting a 404 on that page - the rest of the site's fine, and I can find no mention of this story anywhere inside it.


Has anyone out there actually managed to read the web page? I know that as this is Slashdot, it's hardly liklely ;-)


Tom.


--

Re:404 link.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309094)


yuppers, I read it when there was only 2 comments on slashdot, sounds good...

Re:404 link.... (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309103)

keep hitting reload, it took me a few attempts. The site may be getting slashdotted, but I doubt it given that it's The Register. The site may also be flooded with people looking for the latest on the terror attacks and aftermath and such.

Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (2)

digital_freedom (453387) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309085)

Wow, with 1.6 Ghz ready in a few months and a possible version at 2.0 Ghz Apple might be able to drop the PPC Mhz is not a Intel Mhz campaign that they were doing a while ago. They could drop Mhz numbers left and right and even compete with AMD's numbers. This might be what the PPC and Apple Marketing needed to increase Apple market share and ensure that Apple survives. I'm drooling over the possibility that prices of the G4 will fall to "affordable" levels. These OSX boxes seem to make a nice unix web development box where you can do your flash and movie stuff too.

Also, if the RISC architecture lives up to itself, the 2 Ghz should be a LOT faster than the Intel 2Ghz. Hopefully the FPU is a lot better too.

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (4, Interesting)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309140)

it's been discussed MANY times on /. that there's more to a chip than MHz or GHz. Intel's fastest chip may indeed run at 2GHz, but it also has (IIRC) a 20 stage pipeline. Meanwhile, the G4 chips have a 7-stage pipeline. The new G5 has a 10 stage but is also 64 bit, so I dont know how it will compare to the current G4s in performance. I think it will probably be similar at the start, but G5 will eventually pull away and smoke the G4 over time.

I think Apple has already determined that they arent gonna use clock speed in advertising. They're simply using the numbers G3, G4, and now G5. That's pretty much similar to AMD's new campaign of AMD 7000 chips or something like that.

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (2)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309232)

Read the parent post again - he said that it is a marketting thing. He's not saying that all Mhz are equal...he's basically saying that Apple has had trouble convincing the average consumer that 400PPC is just as good as 900Intel.

The consumer doesn't know about pipelines and all that, nor care. No matter how much you explain the virtues of a RISC to them, they are still gonna be thinking "But the intel chips are 900Mhz".

Regardless of how Apple markets it, this could help out when the average joe goes into CompUSA and the salesman can tell him that the G5 runs at 2GHz, just like the new PIV machine.

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309261)

yeah, you're right. I initially read that post as someone saying "But the intel chips are 900Mhz"

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (1)

daveman_1 (62809) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309267)

Apple may not be using MHz to market, but their resellers certainly are. Just take a look at the cover of the latest MacWarehouse. I now know that the G4 is up to 867MHz, and a G4 can be had in dual 800 form. MHz is important to consumers, therefore Apple cannot simply ignore it and pretend the numbers are unimportant.

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (2)

stripes (3681) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309193)

Wow, with 1.6 Ghz ready in a few months and a possible version at 2.0 Ghz Apple might be able to drop the PPC Mhz is not a Intel Mhz campaign that they were doing a while ago.

Why? You think Intel is going to stand still as Motorola catches up?

Besides it is still likely to be true. You can pretty much never compare Mhz to Mhz between two different CPU designs and come out with the right idea. You really do need to benchmark what you will do with it. Of corse it could be that the P-IIII or K7 is faster, clock for clock, or only given it's higher clock rate depending on what you are running...

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309239)

You've got much to learn, young one...
RISC vs. CISC is not quite as simple as you've been led to believe.

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (2)

Malc (1751) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309280)

Yeah, I'm getting pretty sick and bored of this RISC vs. CISC routine. P3's and P4's basically are RISC chips - ones that support the x86 ISA.

I suggest that anybody who wants to argue about CISC vs RISC should first read this article on Arstechnica [arstechnica.com] . Especially those people like the OP of this thread who seem determined to continue spreading FUD and dis-information.

No true RISC Processors anymore (1)

dameatrius (182345) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309270)

Hate to dissappoint, but the whole RISC/CISC arguement is pretty much dead as PPC and Sun's Ultra are no longer RISC and haven't been anywhere near RISC for a while. Everyone in the home PC arena is working with CISC processors (if you want to even consider Sun Ultra Sparcs as home pcs). They can also compete as much as they want MHz for MHz but I doubt it will make any difference in terms of someone buying a G5 vs a P4. It is all about the software at this point unless you are a *nix person, but there are still limits in terms of NetBSD vs. FreeBSD etc... Plus, I would like to see a comparison of frame rates for Q3 or benchmarks for Office rather than the tired old photoshop benchmarks. The G4 is definitely fast, but Jobs is playing games with the MHz myth stuff and then looking at Photoshop. I want to see how it compares to a 1.4 GHz Athlon in compilation tests for some nasty c++ program (as kernel compilation probably won't be too good a benchmark with the different Linux/BSD OS's available).

Re:Apple Competing w/ Intel PC's??!! (1)

whovian (107062) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309286)

It may be that AMD has both Intel and Apple worried. Intels new agreement with Rambus to sell its DRAM made me think that AMD is serious competition. Why would Intel sleep again with Rambus after getting losing on the RDRAM speculation?

Too bad it will be in $4000 computers (2)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309087)

I love the PowerPC, I really do. Very, very nice from a programmer's point of view, and very low power consumption--a major win--compared to anything from Intel (and AMD, of course, as AMD is higher power than Intel). But G4-based machines are still outrageously priced. The cheapest G4, with the lowest clock speed, is $1700. Bump up the clock speed a bit and we're at $2500. That's _crazy_, considering that you can get a roughly equivalent Pentium III or Athlon system for under $800. (The G4 is a better CPU than the Pentium III or Athlon, but not _that_ much better, and the better memory systems on the PC balance out the difference in most cases.)

The question is _Why_? Apple's machines require much less cooling hardware, plus the PowerPC chips have fewer transistors and should be easier to produce in quantity. Most likely this is where Apple is making most of its money.

Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers (1)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309146)

Branding and exclusive licensing. The only company that makes PowerPC desktop machines is Apple, which means they can charge whatever they want.

They're also Apple, which brings the cachet of Mac snobbery into the market. Apple seems to market like Mercedes-Benz - we're unique, we're different, we're better in a lot of ways, and we're worth the money you pay. Just like a Cavalier vs. an SLK 320, both will get you where you want to go, but one has more prestige among certain individuals.

If another company came along with an entirely new type of PC based on the PowerPC chip and running a new type of OS, Apple would have some competition and that -may- force them to do business on a more equal footing. However, they would still charge out the wazoo for the name.

Apple does real R&D (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309283)

Keep in mind that Wintel vendors don't do any real R&D -- they take Intel's motherboards and chipsets, put them in cases from Taiwan, slap on whatever OS Microsoft provides, and ships them. Some of them do "R&D" but it's mainly basic product development, like QAing a particular HW/SW configuration, vendor selection, and so on.

Apple invests heavily in real research. They build the OS, custom chips, custom industrial design, etc., as well as investing in creating and/or advancing various standards (e.g. PCMCIA, USB, FireWire, OpenFirmware, DVI) and pushing advanced technologies into their products (e.g. the above list, plus DVD-R, flat panel displays). And a much higher percentage of the retail price of Apple hardware goes for R&D than for any other PC vendor.

I'd also point out that while Apple hardware costs more than no-name PC hardware, their products cost about the same as comparable PC's from brand-name Wintel vendors (aside from recent price cutting due to the PC market sucking), and in some cases (e.g. the iBook and PowerBook G4) their prices are quite good.

There are some exceptions: you see some real R&D at Sony and Compaq, for example. But I think that it would be hard to argue that Dell or Gateway do anything interesting from a technology perspective (as oppposed to marketing or manufacturing)...

Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309285)

Hmmm.. Mercs are decidedly upper-middle-class here in Europe, not exclusive, upper-classy things, like Jaguars or Bentleys...

Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers (5, Interesting)

stripes (3681) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309168)

Apple's machines require much less cooling hardware, plus the PowerPC chips have fewer transistors and should be easier to produce in quantity. Most likely this is where Apple is making most of its money.

There are a lot of per product costs (aka non recurring expenses, or NREs). It costs roughly as much to develop a new version of MacOS as Windows. It costs roughly as much to design a new PowerPC as it does a new P-IIII or K7. Apple has about 5% of the market.

If you pretend it costs $100,000 to design a new OS and CPU, and that there are 100 people that buy computers, you can see that the 95 people who buy a Wintel box will have to pay about $1000 each for their share of the NRE. The 5 people that buy Apples have to pay about $20,000 each.

In the real world it isn't quite that bad since there are more uses for the PowerPC then just Apple's products. There are also more NREs that are similar in scale for PC makers. For example the video card in a Mac is pretty much just a PC video card. Apple ships about as many PCs as a big PC maker, so their cost to design a case and motherboard is about the same.

Still if Apple had 50% of the market rather then 5% they could manage to sell the machines for much closer to Wintel prices (maybe even under it).

I'm sure there are some other reasons, but I have a feeling that this is the biggest one...

Apple revenue is predominantly hardware sales (1)

Geek Dash Boy (69299) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309186)

Most likely this is where Apple is making most of its money.

Of course it is. How many people do you know that actually paid for copies of the Mac OS? The first time I ever paid for an OS CD from Apple was when Mac OS X 10.0 was released.

One of the reasons I will always be a loyal Apple customer is they don't try to pull any licensing bullsh*t like Microsoft does.

I live in NYC, and in the last few months there have been advertisements on the subways about the BSA - Business Software Alliance, and how bidness in NYC had better make sure they have all their licenses, 'else MS is gunna break their foot off in yo ass!

Anyway... I have no problem coughing up the dough for Mac hardware. 3 years ago I would have spoken differently, but recently Apple has really started kicking some boo-tay.

I predict the G5 will be announced at MWSF2002, then actually appear on the shelf a few months later. When it does, I will be the first in line to buy one.

Re:Apple revenue is predominantly hardware sales (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309216)

How many people do you know that actually paid for copies of the Mac OS? The first time I ever paid for an OS CD from Apple was when Mac OS X 10.0 was released.

Well, good for you, piracy is GOOD for Apple!

One of the reasons I will always be a loyal Apple customer is they don't try to pull any licensing bullsh*t like Microsoft does.

Nah, Apple pulls the same 'licensing' crap that MS does - totally dude. On opening day at the local AppleStore(TM)(c)(SM), I grabbed an iMac (with that handy little handle) and tried to run out the door with it. They actually had the gall to call me a thief! Imagine that! They claimed there was some 'licensing' issue with me just stealing their hardware.
Assholes. I'm going PC now, all the way man!

Funny how you understand that Apple is a hardware company that tolerates theft of their software that only runs on their hardware, yet you fault Microsoft for trying to make money on their primary products. Not that you have any chance of using logic, or anything.

Re:Apple revenue is predominantly hardware sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309241)

you see, apple has not charged for their OS updates in the past, it was not piracy, you can download the OS updates for free from their site...

Re:Apple revenue is predominantly hardware sales (2)

edremy (36408) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309248)

One of the reasons I will always be a loyal Apple customer is they don't try to pull any licensing bullsh*t like Microsoft does

They don't? Perhaps not as often, but I've gotten burned twice by being an early adopter

I bought one of the very first PPC Macs off the line. 7.1.2 was the OS shipped and it was a true abortion- unstable and slow. Wanted to upgrade to 7.5 three months later? Too bad: cough up the dough, since anyone who bought a x100 PowerMac within the 1st month didn't get the upgrade free. (7.5 sucked too, but not as bad.)

Now Apple's telling me I have to pay for 10.1, despite the fact that 10.0.x is clearly a public beta and not the real OS- it too is unstable and slow. Yeah, yeah, Unix, blah blah. I've locked up OSX badly enough to require pulling the battery out of my TiBook a number of times. By the standards I'm used to (AIX) it's not stable. At least it's not as bad as 7.1.2 was, but then again a house of cards was more stable. We won't even discuss Aqua's speed: I've got the best laptop made today and plenty of RAM and it feels like my old 6100.

Eric

Why? It's the zealots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309188)

Come on, your SID is low enough to see the mindless Mac zealots posting here. Even if your threshold is set higher, their fellow nuts mod them up, and nobody seems to complain. I guess it's the "enemy of my enemy" syndrome for the Linux users here.

That's not to say Mac users are all zealots or anything stupid like that, but there is a decent chunk of them that is fairly vocal and will spend silly amounts of money on the latest and greatest from Mac. It's like American cars in the late 70s - you have a large bunch of people that will buy anything these companies put out, and that produces a bad situation for consumers. Macs quality is generally good, so instead of the poor quality of US cars we had, you just have over-inflated prices.

Their portables are competative, but the desktops are waaaaay overpriced.

It would be nice to see them eat their words on the MHz myth.

Buy the new lightning fast G5!
Why?
It's faster!
You mean more MHz?
Yes!
But I thought MHz didn't matter?
Well, sorta.
Whaddaya mean sorta? I've been trolling on message boards for the last year or so telling everyone that MHz don't matter, and now you go and pull THIS on me?
Well, it's an Apple.
*Drool* You've said enough. I'll just change my alias. I'll take 2 of them, and the latest marketing brochure to copy information off of to post to PC message boards.
Oh, that's the good news.
What?
We've included a PDF on the hard drive that has all of our marketing information, and suggested trolling techniques.
WHOOOOOOOPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers (2)

Noer (85363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309226)

Because unlike Dell or Gateway, Apple has to recoup all their R&D costs, and they don't sell as many machines, so that cost is divided among fewer machines.

Problems! (-1)

sales_worldwide (244279) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309097)

We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)

Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).

And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:

I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.

I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.

But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?

Re:Problems! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309115)

haha I have more karma than you, you suck.

Strategic Opposition (1)

tolan's my name (234431) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309098)

Wearing my 'we-all-want-competition' hat [i aslo have a I'd have to say that I'm very glad the the PPC is offering a serious desktop alternative to Intel.
Given its power-consumption yumminess this is going to potentially be going against the Xscale as well as i386 and IA-64 lines.

On the other hand, serious Mac fans aside, whose going to buy? Are they going to compete on price. Can they get IBM to use these rather than POWER3 in the RS/6000? [Because i always liked the idea that one, unified chip arch could be used across the computing field from phones to supercomps].

Anouther useful market for them might be Qube style boxes, would be cheap to run.

for those who can't get it (1)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309129)

Motorola taped out the PowerPC 8500 - aka the G5 - last week and is set to go into volume production real soon now at speeds of up to 1.6GHz - a higher clock speed than AMD's latest-generation, 'Palomino' Athlon is expected to ship at - The Register has learned.

So claim sources said to be close to Apple, at any rate. The new CPU will be offered at 800MHz, 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz, and while the first two are nominally aimed at the embedded space - the others are aimed straight at the desktop, we hear - we can see Apple using them as to transition over from the top end G4, the PowerPC 7450.

Getting to those clock speeds involved increasing the G5's pipeline from the 7450's seven stages to ten. The part is capable of exceeding 2GHz, we're told, but the initial batch of shipping clock speeds suggests that the either the yield or the stability of 2GHz parts isn't high enough to ship chips at that speed.

High clock speeds also mean high power dissipation, but Motorola has nicely countered it by fabbing the G5 using silicon-on-insulator technology, leading to a power dissipation of 26W at 1.4GHz, our source tells us. By comparison, the 7450 draws 14W at 533MHz. Our source had no word on what process Motorola will use for the part, but we reckon 0.13 micron with copper interconnects. The transistor count will be 58 million gates.

That's said to be twice the 7450's transistor count, which makes us wonder what Motorola will do with the extra gates. The longer pipeline and additional instruction units will account for a lot of it, but we also wonder if the chip will feature a built-in memory manager, something Motorola has been talking about of late.

Beyond far higher clock speeds, the G5 will be a full 64-bit chip, but will support 32-bit addressing at full speed. The part will also support multi-processor configurations.

The G5 will sport a 400MHz frontside bus - like Intel's Pentium 4, though its performance could be limited by whatever memory technology Apple connects to it across the system bus.

Speaking of which, we hear work is progressing on a new chipset, designed for the G5, which will support up to 16GB of DDR SDRAM. What type of DDR, we don't yet know. The chipset's south-bridge part - ie. the chip that primarily handles I/O - will support USB 2.0 and the Bluetooth wireless connectivity standard, in addition to the familiar 1394 - up to 800MBps? - and 802.11 (aka AirPort).

Incidentally, given Apple's recent statement of support for AMD's HyperTransport bus technology, and its presence on the HyperTransport Consortium's founder member list, we reckon that the new chipset may also use HT for chip-to-chip communications, but as yet this is unconfirmed.

We don't know the ship date either, though we've been told that Apple is shooting to get boxes out for a January launch. If Motorola is sampling the G5 now or is about to, then we'd estimate that volume won't begin until early to mid Q1 2002, which would enable Apple to launch at Macworld Expo San Francisco and ship the higher end boxes in, say, February, as it's done before.

Apple will launch Mac OS X 10.2 around the same time, we're told, and offer it as a 64-bit version. To do so would surely limit users of older hardware to 10.1 and its updates, but that hasn't stopped the company making such moves in the past. The G5's 32-bit support will allow apps to be carried forward, and developers have been told they will be able to make '64-bit clean' apps with a simple recompile.

If our source's claims are accurate, the timing would be right for Motorola to unveil the new chip at this autumn's Microprocessor Forum, on 15 October. ®

apple (-1)

mackga (990) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309145)

well, nice tech, for sure. but since apple is involved, i'm sure we'll see this sink into obivlion real soon after launch. anything apple touches implodes almost instantly. in many ways, jobs is much much worse than bg is. not only is he a spastic fuck, but despite good people and fairly decent business ideas, he manages to sink every product launch that apple has ever done. i'm still surprised that osx is as good as it is. too bad for an alternative arch.
p.s. michael is a shit-eating faggot: he dines on taco's watery, putrid, yellowish excrement daily.

Nothing on AltiVec... (1)

Emil Brink (69213) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309154)

The current G4 is a 32-bit CPU with 128-bit SIMD extensions called AltiVec (or Velocity Engine, depending on whether you talk to Motorola or Apple). Now, if the G5 is going to be a 64-bit CPU, I wonder if they've kept the "width ratio" the same, and extended the AltiVec registers to a massive 256 bits... If so, then a single register would be able to hold 8 single-precision (32-bit) floating point numbers, which is half a 4x4 matrix. Could be a real speed king if coded right, I'm guessing... Too bad they'll probably only be available in preboxed form from Apple, and all that. The chipset sounded sweet too, by the way. ;^)

This is good news... (1)

Kazmat (463441) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309171)

But unfortunately, I don't have the huge amounts of money needed to buy an Apple G4, let alone a G5. The ideal thing, for me, would be for some motherboard manufacturer to produce a G5 board compatible with ATX form factor and supporting all the PC usuals (ATA100, lots of PCI slots, AGP, etc). If this happens, it could be a very good thing for those of us looking to dump the x86 architecture.

It would also bring about the possibility of MacOS X on a PC (well, 90% PC...), which is an appealing prospect.

Motorola Reality Check (1)

4iedBandit (133211) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309178)

When was the last time Motorola delivered on Mhz claims? May I remind everyone that the PPC architecture was supposed to be over 1 Ghz a long time ago. Take everything Motorola claims with a salt lick till products are actually shipping. Don't get me wrong, I like the PPC. I like Apple and OS X. I even spend my days with AIX and like it. But this isn't the first time that speed has been over-promised and under-delivered by the folks at Motorola.

affordability (3, Interesting)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309215)

I would love to get my hands on a PPC based box, I'd love to have MacOSX, Linux and MacOS9, but, it's too expensive.

On the PC side, I've had the same machine for over 3 years, and I just keep upgrading 1 or 2 parts at a time. It used to be a 300 celery, now it's a AMD T-bird 900 w/Geforce2. The initial cost was about $1,200-, well under $2,000. Upgrades have run about $1,000, and from the leftover parts I put together another computer that I have connected to my T.V.

With PPC, however, the initial cost would be $1,800+, and I know nothing about upgrades for PPC hardware. Would I be able to continually upgrade parts cheaply with a PPC based machine.

I am interested because I would like to start developing for Linux/MacOSX/Win within the next couple years, with the main focus on Linux/MacOSX, and only on Win if it is profitable for me.

Anyone care to explain how the PPC world works? ; )

Good Thing the Register Doesn't Post Rumors (1)

strictnein (318940) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309222)

Oh wait, that's about all they post.

Baseless rumors and absolute bullshit.

Sorry, but it's just not going to happen. Suprised this even got onto /. I don't know how anyone can consider the Register a reliable news source.

Huh? 10-stage pipeline? (1)

Innominandum (453982) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309240)

A 10-stage pipeline doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing. Maybe this allows more sophisticated microcode. In that case, they seem to be going backward as far as RISC goes. And if there is a branch mispredict will the processor have to refill the WHOLE pipeline before executing instructions again? Now if there were 4 separate pairable 5-stage pipelines, then I think we'd have something. :)

Keeping the RISC alive. (1)

FrankieBoy (452356) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309247)

It's nice to see a RISC chip with a future but it begs the question that people always have with the Macs which is the software, OS and apps. I use OSX on a G3 iMac and it's pretty poor however on the G4 it's considerably better. When I looked for a solution to the iMac problem I came across Yellow Dog Linux which runs like a top on the G3. Imagine what it'll do on the G5.

Database Servers (2, Interesting)

chuckw (15728) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309249)

Can anyone contrast their experiences running a database server (Linux/Oracle/10-20 TPS) based on intel and PPC chips?

my boxen rule!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2309263)

I have 3 boxen, two are x86 boxen, and the third is an alpha boxen. All of my boxen run linux. my boxen rule! Anyone who dosen't say "boxen" constantly is a loser whos boxen probably suck.

Imagine something incredible (1)

XBL (305578) | more than 13 years ago | (#2309287)

Let's just pretend about a scenario in the future, early next year when the PPC G5 comes out. Maybe Apple can get these G5s produced in high quantities at low cost.

Now lets also pretend that a new iMac comes out early next year. It has a G5, LCD, kick-ass design, OS X, etc etc. Can you image the waves such a product would make?

This might sound crazy, but if any company would do such a thing, it would be Apple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?