Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Kornel

In 2003, Apple released a 64-bit dual-core 1.8Ghz system: Power Mac G5.

In 2023, Apple released a 64-bit dual-core 1.8Ghz system: Apple Watch Series 9.

The Watch is faster and has more RAM.

The G5 was too hot to put in a laptop. It'd use up S9's battery in under 2 minutes.

25 comments
Sheldon Chang ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

@kornel that's awesome, but I think you're missing the point here.

The Power Mac G5 was very difficult to wear on your wrist! I still have shoulder problems from those days.

DELETED

@sysop408
On the other hand (pun intended), it is not as easy to connect bigger monitor to that watch, not even mentioning multiple monitors.

Also, the selection of input devices is somehow limited, making it a *bit less* suitable for any serious work.

@kornel

xek (๐Ÿ‘ป๐Ÿดโ€โ˜ ๏ธ๐Ÿ‘ป)

@kornel As a grumpy old person*, this is making me wonder how much battery they crammed into an S9.

* I was pissed off when Apple made me pay for OS X 10.1, just to get the optimizations they should've shipped on my godawful expensive TiBook up front.

Kornel

@xek According to ifixit, S9 has 250mAh battery, which is about 1Wh.

For giggles, 1Wh relative to energy usage of an electric car gives about 6 meters of range.

Jake Robb

@kornel @xek now Iโ€™m imagining someone pulling up to a charging station in their EV and the car dies just a few meters away, but theyโ€™re able to get that last bit by shunting power from their Apple Watch. Like on Star Trek, when they can just reallocate power from other systems and sources to wherever itโ€™s needed.

๐Ÿ’ฌ

@kornel @jimbob tbh iโ€™m surprised a current watch battery has enough electrons in it to run the fans on a G5 for 2 minutes, let alone the rest of it

nex

@rfc6919 @kornel @jimbob Same!

Let's see โ€ฆ I have a cheap NiMH AAA in front of me; it lists its capacity as 900 mAh; at ~1.2 V that's pretty much 1 Wh. Spending that in 2 minutes gives 30 W. Maybe that could sustain the smallest G5 (CPU only) when it's mostly idling? AFAICT the watch in question holds ~1/3 of that.

As 2 minutes was given as a hard upper bound and seems in the right ballpark, I'd say it checks out, but there might be enough wiggle room to reduce that limit to under a minute :)

Kornel

@rfc6919 @jimbob I calculated it for the best-case scenario of 30W power draw of the CPU alone. The G5 came with a 450W power supply โ€” no match for the 1Wh watch battery.

GK

@kornel @stroughtonsmith I really miss having an universal benchmark software, which can run on all old, new and egzotic hardware to be able to compare the speeds. For example there is none available for Apple Watch or tvOS at all

WooShell

@kornel I'm still sad they never figured out a way to make a G5 laptop.

Sean

@WooShell @kornel they did, they swapped the processor out for an intel one ๐Ÿ˜‰

Pavel Machek
@kornel Good news is that we can put 2GHz system into smartwatch. Bad news is that people are putting 2GHz systems into smartwatch, that 2GHz CPUs are now required for displaying time :-(. You know, battery life still suffers with 2GHz CPUs.You can get month with bangle.js2, or day with Apple...
WTL

@kornel Itโ€™s amazing to think that my current watch is faster than my first Mac.โ€ฆ and weighs about 450 times less (fortunately!).

Bored Fauntleroy

@kornel But I still canโ€™t hook my watch up to a screen and keyboard to play my fav q3a modsโ€ฆ

Sean

@kornel is this correct??? Itโ€™s crazy!!

seungjin

@kornel The big difference is that 2003 machine was for creation and 2023 machine is for consumption.

Crystal

I know I *completely* miss your point here but can't help thinking of the sad part that:
the G5 was a computer for sale,
the Watch is a service for rent (so are iPhones and new Macs)

Alphacheez

@kornel @stroughtonsmith and 21 years before the G5, the ZX Spectrum came out with a 3.5 MHz Z80, an 8-color display and either 16 or 48 kilobytes of RAM. I'd say Moore's Law dramatically slowed (especially for single-core performance) around the time the G5 came out.

Jake Robb

@Alphacheez Mooreโ€™s law is about transistor count per cost. Nothing to do with clock speed, and only indirectly with performance. (That said, it _has_ slowed.)

Bonkers

@kornel hold on, a watch should not be faster. It should be precise.

Dustin

@kornel fantastic summarization. Well done!

Go Up