PowerBook and eMac declared "End of Life"

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-20 12:10am

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/01/ ... 5308.shtml

Generally, products are declared "End of Life" when they are going to be replaced.

While I think the PowerBook is probably going to go to 1.5/1.67 GHz as per ThinkSecret's leak (they thought it would be for the MacWorld Expo, though, but two weeks after is close enough), people have pointed out that when a speed bump happens, they usually aren't declared EOL unless it's a major redesign. For example, the iMac G4 was declared EOL before the G5 came out.

This is fueling speculation of a PowerBook G5 and eMac G5.
While I think an eMac G5 is a possibility (the current eMac is $300 more than the Mac Mini, but has the exact same specs + monitor), it's possible its just going to be an all around upgrade (faster G4, faster graphics, bigger HD).

IBM HAS been working on a low-power G5, but this seems (to me) to be way too soon for a PowerBook.

What do you guys think? To G5, or not to G5, for the eMac and PowerBook?

BTW, my opinion:
No G5 PowerBook. I predict these specs: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0501expo5.html faster hard drives, processors, and more VRAM and bigger HDs on the higher end PB's.

eMac G5...quite possibly...but don't hold me to it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-20 10:57am

An eMac G5 is highly unlikely, it would destroy sales of the Mac Mini. As it is the Mac Mini isn't a very good deal compared to the eMac--give the eMac a major hardware boost and you can kiss Mac Mini sales goodbye.

As for the Powerbook upgrade, the Powerbook is LONG overdue for an upgrade, and Apple would have to be crazy not to want to put a G5 in the Powerbook in order to smooth out their product line (right now the iBook and Powerbook overlap in too many areas) but this is of course dependent on the capability to design a thermally compatible G5. I wouldn't discount the possibility of a G5 in a Powerbook, it is possible even today if Apple designed a better cooling system, downclocked the desktop G5 slightly, or even convinced IBM to add the PPC 970 to the SOI process to try to reduce the amount of TDP.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-20 10:59am

Rumours abound of an e600-based (aka the newest G4 revision) PowerBook. It might even be dual-core with DDR.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-20 11:13am

Yeah, I want the e600 badly, but last I heart they're not being manufactured yet.

Both the e600 (dual core G4) and low-power G5 should be ready by WWDC though. I wonder which Apple will use...?

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2005-01-20 01:56pm

Sadly I think the G4 in one form or another is going to be around for a while, as much as I'd like to see everything go to the G5. The launch of the Mac Mini seems to show that Apple agrees. I can see the Powerbook getting a better G4, if not go dual-core. Same with the eMac actually, to differentiate it further from the Mac Mini.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-20 05:18pm

A G4 with real DDR support would actually be a pretty decent processor. As it is now the G4 is badly starved for bandwidth.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-20 05:51pm

Vohu Manah wrote:Sadly I think the G4 in one form or another is going to be around for a while, as much as I'd like to see everything go to the G5. The launch of the Mac Mini seems to show that Apple agrees. I can see the Powerbook getting a better G4, if not go dual-core. Same with the eMac actually, to differentiate it further from the Mac Mini.

That's not too bad. With the new e600 coming out, the single core G4's will take less power than ever and the dual core will be awesome. I recall reading that after the e600 they'll shoot for 2 GHz and possibly add 64-bit extensions.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-01-21 12:45am

Using the e600 creates an interesting marketing question ... what do they call it? G4+? G4e? They can't call it a G5 or G5-M; it's not a 64-bit chip. Either way, the e600 seems almost like a shoe-in for the PowerBooks. If a dual-core e600 PowerBook comes out, I'd be very interested in seeing it face off against a comparable Centrino.

An eMac G5? Hell no. They might just ditch the eMac line entirely. There have been rumors floating around about embarrassing CRT reliability problems.

PowerBook G5? Not in this quarter. Nor the next. Maybe for MacWorld San Francisco, but if that happens, they won't start shipping in good numbers until December. In all likelihood, the PowerBooks will get a speed-bump to 1.5/1.67 GHz.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-21 01:14am

Durandal wrote:Using the e600 creates an interesting marketing question ... what do they call it? G4+? G4e? They can't call it a G5 or G5-M; it's not a 64-bit chip. Either way, the e600 seems almost like a shoe-in for the PowerBooks. If a dual-core e600 PowerBook comes out, I'd be very interested in seeing it face off against a comparable Centrino.

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing too.

G4.5 maybe?

An eMac G5? Hell no. They might just ditch the eMac line entirely. There have been rumors floating around about embarrassing CRT reliability problems.

Yeah, I'd expect higher specs all around (bigger HD + processor) to make it worth the +$300 over the Mini, but not G5 yet.

I predict 1.42 GHz or higher to match the high end Mini.

PowerBook G5? Not in this quarter. Nor the next. Maybe for MacWorld San Francisco, but if that happens, they won't start shipping in good numbers until December. In all likelihood, the PowerBooks will get a speed-bump to 1.5/1.67 GHz.

I agree completely. 1.5/1.67, Bluetooth 2.0, 5400 RPM HD's, and bigger HD's on the high end model, going with TS's predictions.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-21 11:49am

If we can have Quartz Extreme, surely we can have G4 Extreme

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-21 01:52pm

Durandal wrote:Using the e600 creates an interesting marketing question ... what do they call it? G4+? G4e? They can't call it a G5 or G5-M; it's not a 64-bit chip. Either way, the e600 seems almost like a shoe-in for the PowerBooks. If a dual-core e600 PowerBook comes out, I'd be very interested in seeing it face off against a comparable Centrino.

Don't get your hopes up. By the time the e600 comes to market, Yonah will already be hitting store shelves, mated to an upgraded Sonoma platform. Yonah should have the clock advantage too, after all Dothan already can hit ~ 2.5GHz with ease on stock cooling.

An eMac G5? Hell no. They might just ditch the eMac line entirely. There have been rumors floating around about embarrassing CRT reliability problems.

Unlikely in the extreme. eMac sales are simply too good in the education market.

PowerBook G5? Not in this quarter. Nor the next. Maybe for MacWorld San Francisco, but if that happens, they won't start shipping in good numbers until December. In all likelihood, the PowerBooks will get a speed-bump to 1.5/1.67 GHz.

That would be my thought, hold off on a major change to the Powerbook until they can stick a G5 in there. 64-bit is exactly what they need to distinguish it from the iBook line.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-21 02:06pm

They could try distinguishing it with a dual-core e600 for the PB line and a single-core e600 for the iBook.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-21 02:44pm

phongn wrote:They could try distinguishing it with a dual-core e600 for the PB line and a single-core e600 for the iBook.

Apple has historically liked to keep its Powerbook at close to the levels of their desktop machines. Omitting a 64-bit G5 would be a pretty big slap to the people who want a portable workstation.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2005-01-21 02:56pm

The Kernel wrote:
phongn wrote:They could try distinguishing it with a dual-core e600 for the PB line and a single-core e600 for the iBook.
Apple has historically liked to keep its Powerbook at close to the levels of their desktop machines. Omitting a 64-bit G5 would be a pretty big slap to the people who want a portable workstation.

If it is technically not possible at this time, Apple has no choice. The Powerbook is long overdue for an upgrade and if e600 could easily provide that upgrade Apple would be foolish not to use it.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-21 05:19pm

The Kernel wrote:
phongn wrote:They could try distinguishing it with a dual-core e600 for the PB line and a single-core e600 for the iBook.
Apple has historically liked to keep its Powerbook at close to the levels of their desktop machines. Omitting a 64-bit G5 would be a pretty big slap to the people who want a portable workstation.

Dude, a dual-core e600 would be FASTER than a single processor G5 if it's not bottlenecked too badly.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-21 06:07pm

A dual-core e600 is not guarunteed to be faster than a 970, bottleneck or no. It also depends on if your applications are multithreaded or not and well-designed for SMP operation.

It might also beat out the 970 in IPC but the 970 still scales higher.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-01-21 06:12pm

phongn wrote:A dual-core e600 is not guarunteed to be faster than a 970, bottleneck or no. It also depends on if your applications are multithreaded or not and well-designed for SMP operation.

It might also beat out the 970 in IPC but the 970 still scales higher.

I should say it would beat out a MOBILE G5.

If you took a current 2.5 GHz G5, sure, that would probably beat a dual 1.5 G4 pretty quick, but IBM would likely scale it down for a mobile processor (2 GHz or less, I'd guestimate). A dual 1.5 G4 could probably beat out a 2 GHz G5 in multithreaded apps pretty easily. Singlethreaded apps it'd get owned though.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-21 06:23pm

Praxis wrote: I should say it would beat out a MOBILE G5.

If you took a current 2.5 GHz G5, sure, that would probably beat a dual 1.5 G4 pretty quick, but IBM would likely scale it down for a mobile processor (2 GHz or less, I'd guestimate). A dual 1.5 G4 could probably beat out a 2 GHz G5 in multithreaded apps pretty easily. Singlethreaded apps it'd get owned though.

That's not a good assumption to make about a processor that we have no TDP information about, nor any benchmarks. Right now the e600 is a total unknown while the properties of the G5 are well known. Plus, you still have the lack of 64-bit, which is something Apple would like to push as a checklist feature with the Powerbooks.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2005-01-21 06:34pm

Do we have any reports of major iMac G5 overheating issues? Seems to me that if Apple could put a 1.6 - 1.8ghz G5 in there, a 1.2 ghz or lower G5 in a Powerbook is possible if IBM could get power consumption under control.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-21 07:22pm

Overheating is not the only issue (and the iMac G5 does some agressive thermal throttling) but there's also the issue of the power required.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-01-21 10:09pm

Praxis wrote:
phongn wrote:A dual-core e600 is not guarunteed to be faster than a 970, bottleneck or no. It also depends on if your applications are multithreaded or not and well-designed for SMP operation.

It might also beat out the 970 in IPC but the 970 still scales higher.
I should say it would beat out a MOBILE G5.

If you took a current 2.5 GHz G5, sure, that would probably beat a dual 1.5 G4 pretty quick, but IBM would likely scale it down for a mobile processor (2 GHz or less, I'd guestimate). A dual 1.5 G4 could probably beat out a 2 GHz G5 in multithreaded apps pretty easily. Singlethreaded apps it'd get owned though.

Depends on the app. Even if the dual G4 has the advantage in a multi-threaded application, the G5 has a much larger branch instruction table and tons of resources devoted to branch prediction. If the app has a lot of if/then/else's, the G5 could conceivably beat the dual G4.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-01-21 11:02pm

There's also the issue of the G4's weak FPU, which I doubt the e600 has really rectified.