• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

To hell with Athlon 64 and Pentium 4...Apple introduces 64-bit G5!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
More from that same thread.

My mistake.

Early G4 (7400/7410) had 10.5m transistors.

You're correct, the current G4, aka MPC7455 or Apollo, does indeed have approx. 33 million transistors with the addition of L2 over the 7400 series.

For trivia's sake the current G3, IBM's 750FX, sports 29m. The majority of that is 512k L2 cache.

Tabb the PPC 970 power and thermal information is in this PDf. 1.8GHz, 42W TPD, 1.3v. 1.2GHz 19W TPD 1.1v. Those figues may be a bit off since they were part of a pre-release announcement last year. IBM's also has SPEC figures in that document. 937int & 1051fp @ 1.8GHz.
 
Binox does anyone know if these g5's will overclock!?!
the mac bios must have no tweaks I imagine??

Re: Mac overclocking. Read all about it in this AnandTech thread. I'm sure somebody will OC a G5 once they're released.

Macs do not use a PC BIOS. They (current models) use Open Firmware. Sun also uses OF. See soe OF basics here. You can even get into a Mac's OF via Telnet.


Jeff7181 What if I want to upgrade the motherboard or processor? If I spent $3,000 on a computer, I should have upgrade options in the future IMO.

You buy a new CPU and install it. People who swap car engines and computer motherboards are generally not Apple's target market.
 
You buy a new CPU and install it. People who swap car engines and computer motherboards are generally not Apple's target market.
Click to expand...
So they're targeting what 75%? and gettin 2%? Wow... that's pretty impressive... they're winning over 2.5% of their target market... hoo-ray for Apple. =)
 
Hmmm...I want to stay out of the Mac vs. PC wars, but still have to say I WANT ONE!!! With one of those wide-screen LCD's, too! Those rock! Too bad it would cost me about $5K

Looks pretty sweet, though. Dispite the skeptism here, I don't find hard to believe that a duallie 64-bit 2Ghz proc by IBM w/ 1 Ghz FSB beats the shi$tz out of what AMD and Intel has on the market. Of course it always depends on the application, and it's difficult to compare w/ different OS's, blah, blah, blah...stop yer bitchin' The Mac OS is still pretty sweet, and the industry ('specially Micro$oft) is better off with more competition. It's better off for us comsumers, anyway.

Still, costs too much and I like building & tweaking PC's too much to switch over. Maybe if I was rich...

Goin to Vegas for the 4th!! If I win a ton o' money, I'll buy one. Otherwise, I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by: addragyn
SSE2 was not disabled. The article writer either doesn't know his subject or has trolled the internet.
Click to expand...
If you had bothered to read his article, you would have noticed this correction:

As to not using SSE2, Joswiak said they enabled the correct flags for it, as documented on the gcc web site, so that SSE2 was enabled (the Veritest report lists the options used for each test, which appears to include the appropriate flags).
I originally said that Apple/Veritest had disabled SSE2 for FP, thereby crippling FP performance. After further investigation, it seems I was mistaken about this particular point. The GCC "-mfpmath=sse" option (which Apple used) does in fact enable SSE2 as well as SSE1.
HOWEVER, Apple still cheated on the floating-point benchmarks. I was *correct* in claiming that they cheated, but the *reason* I gave was not correct. Apple used a special fast "relaxed IEEE math" option on the G5 but NOT on the Dell/Intel, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage in floating-point operations. The equivalent option in GCC for the Dell/Intel computers is "-ffast-math", but Apple/Veritest did not use it. Thank you to the readers that pointed this out to me.
Click to expand...
 
It's a funny thing about credibility.. you can only lose it once.


An article about compilers that can't distinguish between flags shows a lack of understanding or basic research. Sh!tty "journalism" is in no way a valid resppnse, IMO, to shady benchmarking. The MALLOC, if that's what you're talking about, has been a question mark since day one. This is all old news. That there is an article filled with claims, and utterly lacking in explanations is pretty much a nonstarter in my book. I absolutely will not take the authors competency as a given based on errors in the article, and the immature rebuttals to reader letters that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

---

G5 System Architecture PDF
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/PowerMacG5.pdf
 
It-ya be nice if there was some company or some way of getting ahold of a computer with them IBM 970 cpus and slaping some linux/unix onto it. From reading these post it would seem that not only do ppl dist Apple but by doing so they dist the cpu "the 970" and talk like it's own by Apple or something. Thoes cpus are OWN!

--IDD--
 
Well, I already know everything I need to know about Apples. They get stuck between my teeth when I eat them. Besides, I would rather own a Corvette that I can drive on any road in the world, than a Ferrari that can only use about 5% of the roads. I do like their case, though. Wonder how much Apple will be selling it for,empty? Knowing Jobs, I'm sure you'll be able to get it for less than $1,000!

Hey, how do I put my system specs into my profile on here?
 
that 970 cpu uses more power then i thought it would and what i would like for it to use. i thought one of the kewlest things about risc base cpus is the fact they are reduce/less complex/less thing being done with hardware/more on the soft side= less power needs, cooler running ect... but then that is what via said about there c3 cpus. and while they may use a lot less power they seem to run very dang hot unless you have a huge cpu with fan. my old 800mhz duron not only would kill a c3 1ghz but it stays at and around 90F in temps around around 105 with a load. from what i notice on reviews c3s tends to hang around 45C+ without loads. <--- kinda off subject but oh well.

--IDD--
 
Originally posted by: adlep
MercenaryForHire
To hell with the Search function ... let's repost the same damn crap fifty thousand times!
Click to expand...

What is YOUR problem?
This thread has originated 5 days ago....
STFU Nef..
Edit: This is the only thread about G5 in CPU/Processors forum, which IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO DISCUSS IT, since it is a thread about processor :Q

Weird, so many people on these forums just love to bash other people for no apparent reason...
And I know how to use the "search" function
Click to expand...

Yeah dude I see a lot of bashing on these forums. A lot of times it's humans bashing new users and then sometimes I wonder why you never see them around again. To be totaly honest I've use the search before and most of the time you can hardly find what you want with it. If you do get results it takes some time going thrue them or there only half what you need. I my self will always post a new topic unless I see the topic withint the first 3 pages of a forum.

--IDD--
 
Originally posted by: render
hype

(Actually I don't care how great they are. I will build my computer)
Click to expand...

Yea, don't go to the dark side of Apple!! We build our own machines here.

Bfonnes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top