“Recent word from sources close to Motorola confirm that a significant speed bump will be timed for MacWorld Expo in July, raising current bus speeds, and seeing new 7470-based G4s raise frequencies to as high as 1.5Ghz. […] What of the G5? That’s still on course for volume production early next year, in the form of what’s codenamed the 7500. Public Motorola roadmaps describe this as a processor that conforms to the e500 Book E G5 spec, and it’s been rated stable at 2.4GHz internally at Motorola. But to get a handle on this it’s worth paying attention to the internals, as this indicates an important rethink in the Megahertz wars.” Read the report at TheRegister.
Apple Aims to Boost Bandwidth with 1.5 GHz G4s
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I believe you will find information on the Book E spec on Motorolas site.
As for PPC64, IBM have not only info but patches for the Linux kernel!
Really, I do believe the 64-bit part. I really do. Its even on the roadmap.
And I never denied its existance. Only called G5 vapourware case most information about it is… well… rumours :-).
AMD likely already have access to those patents (big companies tend to have cross-patent deals, apparently the software industry hasn’t figured this out yet).
Actually, some software companies do have cross patent deals. Like TrueType and Microsoft.
LOL, you just agreed with me!
I never said G5 wasn’t vapor, I just pointed out that the word is used very selectively.
And most of your post, you are practically agreeing with me.
Indeed Rumors don’t alsways come true – Both Motorola and AMD have talked about multicore CPUs before now and not delivered.
As for the Register, the G5 rumours they posted at Christmas appear to sound much more like faster G4s, we’ll find out in a couple of months – hopefully.
Not that I care about the new G4s, I gonna watch MWNY through TechTV (finally, cause now I have it through my house). Not because of anything, but just to see how Steve Jobs handle the crowd. Jobs is a great business man and a great marketer. Though, if there was some sourgrapes here and there, Apple would be antitrust trouble :-D.
He is correct on IBM wanting to tout their own new G4 with their own SIMD unit, though there was speculation that they would license Altivec off of Motorola. There should be information on their website about this in the OEM/microelectronics area. I’ll look it up myself again to see where I was reading on it. It’s been awhile since I cam across that info.
Did in any way I denied it? Nope. So you should say “He and you are correct…….”
But the part of IBM making G5s I don’t believe, there isn’t any information about the G5 that matches the rumours about it on IBM’s site.
As for Apple’s marketshare, though it’s on the rise, I don’t think it will be some overnight success and most Mac users rather just see Apple get anywhere between 5-10% of the market (enough to be happy) and not be a bigger blip on the radar screen for computer vandals (better known as hackers) and other such nonsense. Weird concept, but it has worked so far!
Apple’s market share is on the rise because of good choice of decissions, very good marketing, very good advertsing, very good press relations. But not unless I win a million dollars, I would never be able to afford a Mac (not that Macs cost a million dollars, but there is plenty of other stuff that heads my wish list above Macs)
I suppose we could have answered all this about the G4 and IBM by looking at Apples web site, a direct quote:
”The PowerPC G4, architected by Apple, Motorola and IBM”
So, Thats as clear as mud… but at least we know IBM was involved.
>And most of your post, you are practically agreeing with me.
🙂
This isn’t a good sign for trying to keep a a flame war going…
>But the part of IBM making G5s I don’t believe, there isn’t any information
>about the G5 that matches the rumours about it on IBM’s site.
There doesn’t appear to be a “G anything” on IBMs site, but thats only the stuff they sell, we don’t know exactly what they make, or who they do deals with other than an announcement a couple of years back about them making G4s.
If Apple wanted a second source IBM would be the obvious choice though.
>>Reminds me of the time a BeoS user sugested that someone write a virus killer. The responce went “shouldn’t someone first write a virus?”<<
Didn’t some Eastern European software developer create an anti-virus program for BeOS not so long ago?
So sarcasm doesn’t fit in your vocabulary? Maybe I should have said something more like this to fit your approval “Microsoft has the most powerful marketing firm in the world!”
You’re changing the subject. The real issue here is Apple. Why are you afraid to answer the tough questions about Apple?
Oh so now you call us losers, we were liars, but now we’ve fallen to losers on your little scale! The only point (or points) you have made here end with ‘less’!
You’re changing the subject. The real issue here is Apple. Why are you afraid to answer the tough questions about Apple?
Only apparent in the last 6 months and not on all benchmarks!
Unless you define “6 months” to actually mean the last 16 years, then you’re full of it. Who do you think you’re fooling? My first Mac was the Fat (512K) Mac. It was slower than the PCs of that time. The condition has improved little.
Sad excuse, they’re not much older… maybe a year older than my G3 Mac and share similar specs. But wait a minute, didn’t you just say PCs are faster?
Yes, it is a sad excuse. I have always been talking about contemporary products. You can’t make a Mac look good on a level playing field.
Sorry, I can’t do that… we still use them for checking email (and maybe for some other stuff, I have a laptop now… so I don’t touch those machines very often)!
So your original claim was false. It’s like pulling teeth getting a straight answer out of you!
Like I said, you named one site out of a million! There have been millions of benchmarks been done here or there, how do you decide which ones are correct?!
You’re changing the subject again. If you have any specific problem with any of the benchmarks used in Byte’s tests, then speak up. You don’t want to do the testing yourself, or comment on existing tests, so you have no right to complain.
IBM currently builds PowerPC chips right now for Apple. So your FUD is incorrect! IBM also has stated that there is more life left in the G3, though they are pursuing the design of a G4 with their own SIMD unit, even though IBM does not like to stack extras on CPUs as they have stated in the past!
As I stated previously, IBM is only making G3 chips for Apple. After that, they have no deal. Why do you lie? It’s right there on the webpage!
About the rest…changing the subject, yada yada yada…you know the drill…
So, Thats as clear as mud… but at least we know IBM was involved.
I never said IBM never was involve in G4. In fact, I have prove on ibm.com to proof otherwise. All I’m saying that IBM has not shown any proof to support the rumours of G5.
There doesn’t appear to be a “G anything” on IBMs site, but thats only the stuff they sell, we don’t know exactly what they make, or who they do deals with other than an announcement a couple of years back about them making G4s.
Why are you keep on bring up G4? I never denied its existance. I never denied IBM involvement.
If Apple wanted a second source IBM would be the obvious choice though.
Ditto.
Unless you define “6 months” to actually mean the last 16 years, then you’re full of it. Who do you think you’re fooling? My first Mac was the Fat (512K) Mac. It was slower than the PCs of that time. The condition has improved little.
My first Mac was the the beef burger….. (okay, its a lame joke 🙂
As I stated previously, IBM is only making G3 chips for Apple. After that, they have no deal. Why do you lie? It’s right there on the webpage!
Currently. But Apple should abandon Motorola for IBM. I mean, IBM pump in more speed faster than Motorola. IBM seem more dedicated. Besides, IBM is coming out with their PowerPC chips with SIMD unit (it is old news), but it is yet to be seen. I doubt it would be G4 as in G4, maybe Power 5 for their servers. Anyway, IBM does build PowerPCs for Apple, and most of the PowerPC spec was done by IBM, a little credit is needed here
You’re changing the subject again. If you have any specific problem with any of the benchmarks used in Byte’s tests, then speak up. You don’t want to do the testing yourself, or comment on existing tests, so you have no right to complain.
If you ask me, I haven’t seen one benchmark that isn’t biased between G4 and x86 processors. It is either old G4 vs. new x86, or new G4 vs. old x86, or new G4 vs. x86 from a different market (i.e. not for workstation). So anyway, on the average, for the same clockspeed, G4 is 2x Pentium 4, which means Pentium 4 outperforms G4s… But then I’m comparing old G4 and old P4s, both of which have undergone design changes, especially P4.
Speed: PCs isn’t perfect. But I still use it. I plan to buy a PC for the next computer. And perhaps the computer after that. Maybe if I turn rich, money won’t be the problem anymore, I would buy a Mac. But then…. since I don’t really like the Aqua UI, which is forced on to me if I use Mac’s only feature I like…. I don’t know.
A lot of folks are doing their best to deny that IBM has left the troika that developed CPUs for Apple. And not surprisingly, the Mac-heads want everyone to believe that the universe revolves around Apple. But the truth is that IBM is no longer interested in producing small runs of special CPUs just for Apple.
Assuming that IBM is willing to pick up where they left off is sheer speculation. When I consider that IBM had some reason to quit, I have doubts about their willingness to start up again. I suspect that asking IBM to go again would be like asking an ex-girlfriend who dumped you for a date!
Sure, if the price was right, IBM could be coaxed into taking over. But like I said, Apple would be begging, and the cost of IBM’s CPUs would influence other things. If Apple passed the cost along to consumers, demand would drop, along with profits. If they didn’t, profits would drop too! So without Motorola, an already behind Apple would fall further behind…or worse.
oh btw about the dispute of what apple will do if motorola stops making processors: apple has officially announced that… i forget the actual quote but… its possible that in the future it will switch to other processor architecture other than powerpc – after all now they have a mobile OS so it should not be that hard to port it to other chips (not necessarily x86 chips)
Interestting news, myrdred. I’ll assume that you mean portable, not mobile. Since the OS that OSX uses was ported from IA-32, it was easy to reverse the process. The hard part is dealing with all the other stuff! And the existing programs would all become useless (again) on the new platform.