PDA

View Full Version : DP PowerBook G5s?


Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 10:02 AM
I think that it's possible to put dual processors in some of the PowerBook models that are available using 90nm technology (90nm should keep the system much cooler). I've seen this done in notebook PCs before. This is how I see a future lineup of PowerBook G5s (in 6 months or more, PowerMac G5s should be running at much higher clock speeds than they are now):


17" -- DP 2.2GHz G5
15.4" -- DP 2.0GHz G5
15.4" -- DP 1.8GHz G5
15.4" -- SP 1.8GHz G5
12" -- SP 1.8GHz G5


edit: What if by default the second processor was turned off? The user could turn it on in the operating system control panel if they need it for doing highly intensive processing tasks. Even then, the operating system should control the use of the second processor by limiting the use of it; this is just the same way that the OS manges the fans in the PowerMac G5. The OS could manage it in such a way as to keep the heat down and battery life relatively high. That just might work. ;)

Veldek
Jul 4, 2003, 10:40 AM
Will this ever stop?

Wow, this lineup is the most improbable I've ever seen. First, G5s are running way too hot to put even one of them in a PowerBook. Second, in no case Apple will put chips that run at higher frequencies as the desktop ones in a PowerBook. Wait some time (at least 6 months), then we might see 1.4Ghz or perhaps 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz G5s in a PowerBook, but yours is ridiculous.

Sorry for being this harsh, but I can't stand this anymore...:(

Billicus
Jul 4, 2003, 10:41 AM
That'll be nice, but it'll be awhile. :cool:

Billicus
Jul 4, 2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Veldek
Will this ever stop?

Wow, this lineup is the most improbable I've ever seen. First, G5s are running way too hot to put even one of them in a PowerBook. Second, in no case Apple will put chips that run at higher frequencies as the desktop ones in a PowerBook. Wait some time (at least 6 months), then we might see 1.4Ghz or perhaps 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz G5s in a PowerBook, but yours is ridiculous.

Sorry for being this harsh, but I can't stand this anymore...:(

He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...

Mr. Anderson
Jul 4, 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Billicus
He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...

Have you not noticed the cooling system installed on the current G5s?

I don't think the G5 chips will go into the PowerBook - they might wait to get the 980s in there since they'll be smaller and have less current draw/heat as well.....

D

Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 11:05 AM
I didn't mean that this might happen right away folks. But perhaps in 6 months or more. And 90nm chips should keep the system cool enough. ;)

Veldek
Jul 4, 2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Billicus
He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...

But he didn't say how far this future is away. So if new PowerBooks are announced on the 16th, this would be in the future, too, wouldn't it.

Edit: Ok, you corrected yourself, but even in 6 months THIS won't be the case, never!

Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 11:09 AM
I have edited the original post to clear up any confusion. ;)

Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Veldek
Edit: Ok, you corrected yourself, but even in 6 months THIS won't be the case, never!

Ah, but Apple and IBM wowed us by getting the G5 out early. You never know what they might do next. ;)

Veldek
Jul 4, 2003, 11:24 AM
I think Mr. Anderson said it when he pointed out that G5s need way too much cooling to fit in a PowerBook. In 6 months there will perhaps be the first revision of the Power Macs. Assuming that the top model will run at 2.5GHz (to reach 3GHz 6 months later), then the low end model will be SP 2GHz or less. So in no way there will be your lineup becoming reality. And talking about what might be there in one year or more is too far away yet, don't you think. One could even think of QP 4GHz G5s in a Power Mac "in the future".

Why can't we be content with what we got?

Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Veldek
Why can't we be content with what we got?

One word: competition.

shadowfax
Jul 4, 2003, 11:34 AM
well, all cooling aside, predicting dual processor laptops is about as asinine as predicting quad processor powermacs. it's not going to happen, panther. they clock a single processors as high as they can without overheating the little boxes, and they run it like that. they don't try to add another one. one 970 at those speeds would be more than enough power for a laptop. 2/3 of their desktop line is slower than 2 GHz. when they finally do put in the 970 on Powerbooks, you will probably find that, like just about every other powerbook, it matches or very slightly surpasses the lowest-end powermac they sell, never anything more.

also, i don't know how soon this .09 µ process is coming. may be a bit farther off than you're hoping.

man, i cant wait for those 10 GHz G10 Quantum processors to get into powerbooks! maybe they'll be dual proc!

macphoria
Jul 4, 2003, 11:49 AM
Dual processor laptop will not happen because of power consumption. Even if they come up with battery that can support two processors for 5 hours, wouldn't you rather have a laptop that lasts 10 hours by having single processor? I know this estimation is not precise, but you know what I'm getting at.

Ensoniq
Jul 4, 2003, 12:06 PM
I agree that DP PowerMac laptops won't come until there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't think that has happened yet. For most, a single high-speed processor is the best speed/battery power combination available so far.

But regarding what is or isn't possible...this has been discussed before and I will say it again.

Up until the PowerMac G5 announcement two weeks ago:

Low-End PowerMac - 1 GHz G4
High-End PowerBook - 1 GHz G4
High-End iMac - 1 GHz G4
High-End eMac - 1 GHz G4

See something in common? All 3 of the high-end lineups used the low-end PowerMac G4 chip. Apple didn't see this as a problem, so why should we? So it's entirely possible to believe that within 6 months:

Low-End PowerMac - 1.6 GHz G5
High-End PowerBook - 1.6 GHz G5
High-End iMac - 1.6 GHz G5

Ignoring the eMac, which Apple may keep at the G4 level for a while due to cost concerns, the above formula matches Apple's previous G4 formula exactly. Why do so many insist that having a 1.6 GHz G5 in all 3 machines at the same time is impossible? It's EXACTLY what Apple should do, from a business standpoint, unless there is a legitimate TECHNICAL reason why it can't be done.

You can debate the heat/power issues all day long...but no one knows for sure that a single G5 is too hot for anything. Remember...the PowerMac G5 has nine fans and 4 optimized cooling zones TO KEEP IT QUIET, not specifically due to heat issues related ENTIRELY to the processors. The assertion that a move to a 90nm process is needed before there could ever be a PowerBook/iMac G5 is unfounded, and purely speculative. Only Apple and IBM know for sure.

Veldek
Jul 4, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Panther 970
One word: competition.

Of course, you have to proceed because of competition, but that doesn't mean that you can do magic. The technology isn't as far as it has to be for such a thing, just look at the above posts.

It's simply far from reality, that's it.

Sun Baked
Jul 4, 2003, 12:16 PM
Two 2GHz CPUs at 50W is about 100W.

Stick it in a laptop and you'll get enough to do this (http://www.hasbro.com/easybake/) which also cooks along at about 100W.

Dual 2GHz G5 Laptop should output enough heat to cook your nuts, don't think you'd get a Darwin Award for it though.

Second option costs $20 and also cooks using 100W, but at least it comes with a cookbook.

XnavxeMiyyep
Jul 4, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
well, all cooling aside, predicting dual processor laptops is about as asinine as predicting quad processor powermacs.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of quad processor macs. It's been done before, even if it was a clone as opposed to a system built by Apple.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/daystar/mp_plus/genesis_mp932_plus.html

Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by macphoria
Dual processor laptop will not happen because of power consumption. Even if they come up with battery that can support two processors for 5 hours, wouldn't you rather have a laptop that lasts 10 hours by having single processor? I know this estimation is not precise, but you know what I'm getting at.

Notebook processors are designed not to suck up as much juice as desktop processors.

Also, in about 2 years, fuel-cell technology will become available for notebooks. In the meantime, 90nm processors should be enough keep battery life high and internal heat low.

Panther 970
Jul 4, 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Veldek
Of course, you have to proceed because of competition, but that doesn't mean that you can do magic. The technology isn't as far as it has to be for such a thing, just look at the above posts.

It's simply far from reality, that's it.

All I'm saying is that I've seen DP notebooks before from major competitors and if companies like Dell, Gateway, and HP-Compaq can do it with the support of Intel and AMD, then shouldn't Apple do it to with the support of IBM?

The point I'm trying to make is that Apple's high-end PowerMacs and PowerBooks are supposed to be "Pro" machines and some models should sport DP. All iMacs, eMacs, and iBooks should sport single processors only since these are strictly consumer machines. The Xserve should be in a category all by itself, sporting 4 or more processors. ;)

macphoria
Jul 4, 2003, 01:15 PM
Notebook processors are designed not to suck up as much juice as desktop processors.

Also, in about 2 years, fuel-cell technology will become available for notebooks. In the meantime, 90nm processors should be enough keep battery life high and internal heat low.
This is true. But again, second processor will still drain power. On top of this, if a user needs that much processing power, Apple would want you to spend money on their Power Macs which is supposed to be the top of the line Mac.

shadowfax
Jul 4, 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
There's nothing wrong with the idea of quad processor macs. It's been done before, even if it was a clone as opposed to a system built by Apple.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/daystar/mp_plus/genesis_mp932_plus.html you say so, boss, but i'm not holding my breath. you can run down to MacOSRumors if you like, they have been predicting quads since probably before steve started apple. and apple has never done it. not in their PowerMacs

also, about technology increases allowing the implementation of dual processors. yeah, i guess so.

you'll get fuel cells giving you all kinds of battery life. 65 nanometer processes that make the die smaller and smaller, and cooler running. what will they do? clock it higher! why would i want 2 65 nm G5s at 3 GHz when i could have one at 6, or even 1 at 5? all those advances also come with a pushing of the envelope in single processor performance, which in turn causes the need for better heating control. and when it comes, they just clock the processor faster.

they aren't going to 65 nm processes so they can make a processor that runs at 3 watts at 2 GHz. and if they do, you won't want 2 of those, because the chip they put in the power macs will be clocked 3 times higher. and there will be two there.

seriously, once again, what they will do is push it to the max on one. it's what they always do.

Abstract
Jul 4, 2003, 02:04 PM
Okay, the "Quad" convo is going nowhere. Who cares? It ain't going into a PB. ;)

ON topic, dual 2.0GHz 970's in the PB won't be coming in 6 months. I don't think that will ever be a reality. I can hardly imagine a single 970 going into a PB casing unless it was at 1.2GHz, maybe 1.4GHz. They should do this. For now, this should be their goal --- getting faster G5 PB's to us. If 64-bit is Apple's future, they better get all their computers rolling in the 64-bit direction.

shadowfax
Jul 4, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Abstract
Okay, the "Quad" convo is going nowhere. Who cares? It ain't going into a PB. ;) no one said it was, man. i was using it's chances of getting on a desktop apple machine as an analogy to the chances of the Pbook getting dual proc G5s.

as to your goals, i agree with them, but i don't even see those going into powerbooks in the next 6 months. i think they are going to go for that new IBM G3 that will really be a G4, if not the 7457 from moto, for well into 2004. they have gone 64 bit on their überpro line, but there is no call to do this anywhere else. probably all of less than 5% of the people that use the G5s will actually take advantage of the 64-bitness. it's just great for people because it is clocked so much higher than the G4s can, plus is has all kinds of insanely high bandwidth. so, no, i don't think "they'd better get on the ball and make all their new computers 64-bit," not even the powerbook, yet. it would be nice, i would love it, but i really don't expect it.

NavyIntel007
Jul 4, 2003, 02:35 PM
Cell phone manufacturers are coming out with dual processor cell phones. Why? Because the kind of processing power needed to do all the new stuff (take pictures, surf the net, mp3...) uses too much power and would lower battery life. With two slower processors using less power all features are retained and battery life remains high.

This philosophy will not work in the computer industry. Everyone is pushing the bar upwards as far as megahertz go regardless of battery life. A dual processor laptop would have to have two processors at 2/3 the speed that we are all used to. Granted, this could be faster than the single processor model but who wants to go through the trouble to market it? Apple has a hard enough time competing with the slower processors that they have now.

Dual processor laptops may be on the way, but it's not going to be for performance and ego like what you want. It will be because there is no way to put the fastest processor available into the laptop and get a decent battery life.

I partially agree with the person who said all machines should be duals. I think all machines should be AVAILABLE in duals. I love Apple's lineup and website. But they need a lesson in customization from Dell.

macphoria
Jul 4, 2003, 03:30 PM
That's a good point. I believe part of the reason, if not the reason, why Apple began making dual processor machine is because they got behind PC's in clock speed. If clock speed of Mac processor is high enough, there is little reason why dual processors are necessary.

nuckinfutz
Jul 4, 2003, 03:33 PM
DP Powerbooks won't happen. Users need Battery longevity over speed in most cases.

Here is how Apple will do it.

90nm 970s will hit early next year. We'll have our first G5 Powerbooks. 6-8 months later we'll have another speedbump. Powerbooks will hit 2.5Ghz on the high end.

Early 2005-Mid 2005. Apple will announce the use of the POWER5 Derivative Processor. Most likely named the PPC 980. This will be fabbed at 90nm and will support Simultaneous Multithreading(SMT)

The advantage of using SMT is to split a processor into "Logical CPUs" without the need to increase the CPU real estate on a motherboard. So you will effectively have Dual Processing in many areas without the additional heat and space requirements.

Those of us that think Duals and Quads are inevitable have to look at the changes currently going on in the Microprocessor arena. Quads will exist but they will always be very expensive. The cheaper solution is to transition to a processor with Multithreading support(SMT, Hyperthreading) and then move to Dual Cores with SMT per core. Within 5 years you will most likely be using a computer with Two Physical CPU. Each CPU will have 2 cores and each core will support SMT. Therefore you will have the logical equivalent of 8 CPUs although your Motherboard only needs to support the pin count for two CPUs.

As you can see ..this makes far more sense for many reasons beyond cooling.

MacFan25
Jul 4, 2003, 04:02 PM
I don't think that this will happen for a while for one reason - battery life. Maybe if we get fuel-cell powerbooks, then we can have dual processers in them. ;)

Panther 970
Jul 6, 2003, 02:16 PM
once again, I have edited my original post in this thread

shadowfax
Jul 6, 2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Panther 970
edit: What if by default the second processor was turned off? The user could turn it on in the operating system control panel if they need it for doing highly intensive processing tasks. Even then, the operating system should control the use of the second processor by limiting the use of it; this is just the same way that the OS manges the fans in the PowerMac G5. The OS could manage it in such a way as to keep the heat down and battery life relatively high. That just might work. ;) i think there is one fact that will remain throughout: a desktop computer at the highest end will always be faster than a laptop at the highest end, especially in an apple world where the highest end is always dual proc.

now, given that, there are a number of ways you can get a lesser amount of processing into a laptop. one is to clock the processor high and give it scaling to adjust for different processing situations. apple does this minimally, and it's really a waste of time at the level they do it--as in, you can have the proc clock down to like 667 MHz when you unplug it. it doesn't adjust based on usage at all.

another way to make the laptop run is to have two even lower clocked processors in it. then you could shut one down. yeah, that sounds practical. you would take massive performance hits with it off, for one, and then you have this big waste of space when it's off. also, when you are talking about running basically the same processor as the desktop, which apple seems to like to do still, it is going to be doubly expensive to buy 2, not 1 processors.

conclusion: i don't think this feature would change anything. they are still impractical. dual core processors would be nice, and even practical, someday not too far off, but i don't think 2 physical procs is at all.

gopher
Jul 6, 2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
[B]you say so, boss, but i'm not holding my breath. you can run down to MacOSRumors if you like, they have been predicting quads since probably before steve started apple.

Just FYI, before Steve Started Apple was before Apple existed. Steve Jobs started Apple with Steve Wozniak in the beginning. Now if you mean before Steve came back to Apple as part of the NeXT deal your statement would make a little more sense.

shadowfax
Jul 6, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Just FYI, before Steve Started Apple was before Apple existed. Steve Jobs started Apple with Steve Wozniak in the beginning. Now if you mean before Steve came back to Apple as part of the NeXT deal your statement would make a little more sense. it was a joke, mate. i might as well have said, since before the beginning of time. i am very aware that steve jobs "started" apple. now if i said he started apple, how could i have thought that it existed before that? how do you start something that exists already (other than, say, a car engine)?

thanks for the heads up, but i think you just made an ass of yourself :p ;)

gopher
Jul 6, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
it was a joke, mate. i might as well have said, since before the beginning of time. i am very aware that steve jobs "started" apple. now if i said he started apple, how could i have thought that it existed before that? how do you start something that exists already (other than, say, a car engine)?

thanks for the heads up, but i think you just made an ass of yourself :p ;)

Who is the one making an ass of themselves? Factually your statement made no sense. Without the proper facts, even a joke can sound awkward.

shadowfax
Jul 6, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Who is the one making an ass of themselves? Factually your statement made no sense. Without the proper facts, even a joke can sound awkward. that's true, except when your joke employs a rhetorical technique like "contrary to fact" statements. this clearly was. i went back and looked, and there was no logical way, even given the wrong facts, you could misinterpret my statement. it's very clearly intended to be as oxymoronic as "since before the beginning of time." I'm sorry you didn't catch it, but don't go calling me an ass because you made a mistake. i was just joking around with you in any case.

iMook
Jul 6, 2003, 03:37 PM
Geek Note: the only advantage that quantum processing has over silicon processing is its ability to be massively parallel on a single qubit. Thus, the Ghz number wouldn't actually matter in a quantum computer, for it would process numerous simultaneous calculations per clock cycle. Also, the operating system would need to be radically different than any current operating system, because unless you want a quantum processor just to run 46 iterations of Photoshop at once or model the planet's weather, you'd need a VERY fast and VERY reliable calculation router, splitting your program's linear code into parallel code for the quantum CPU to crunch, then have the same router merge the finished products into a single coherent data stream. Currently envisioned applications of quantum computing extend from weather modeling to cryptography to hydrodynamics. All of these need numerous parallel calculation streams, but I don't see how your run-of-the-mill Photoshop 15.1 will need hundreds of continuous simultaneous calculation streams.

Anyways, current quantum computers use NMRs and water/Styrofoam. So, we're talking far future here, unless a truly miraculous breakthrough is developed/discovered.

Sun Baked
Jul 6, 2003, 03:39 PM
Open foot, insert mouth :rolleyes:

iMook
Jul 6, 2003, 03:41 PM
I fully agree with Shadowfax.

gopher, the rhetorical technique that Shadowfax is using is commonly referred to as "humor", specifically, the art of "exaggeration".

If you want other similar artworks, read Dave Barry or Tony Kornheiser.

shadowfax
Jul 6, 2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by iMook
Geek Note: the only advantage that quantum processing has over silicon processing is its ability to be massively parallel on a single qubit. Thus, the Ghz number wouldn't actually matter in a quantum computer, for it would process numerous simultaneous calculations per clock cycle. Also, the operating system would need to be radically different than any current operating system, because unless you want a quantum processor just to run 46 iterations of Photoshop at once or model the planet's weather, you'd need a VERY fast and VERY reliable calculation router, splitting your program's linear code into parallel code for the quantum CPU to crunch, then have the same router merge the finished products into a single coherent data stream. Currently envisioned applications of quantum computing extend from weather modeling to cryptography to hydrodynamics. All of these need numerous parallel calculation streams, but I don't see how your run-of-the-mill Photoshop 15.1 will need hundreds of continuous simultaneous calculation streams.

Anyways, current quantum computers use NMRs and water/Styrofoam. So, we're talking far future here, unless a truly miraculous breakthrough is developed/discovered.

i did a huge paper on quantum computers for my IB diploma (which i am glad to say i found out an hour ago i got an A on :)), and yeah, they are way future tech. and the algorithms only help you a lot with patterned occurrences, which should have a pretty good yield on graphics, someday, actually--but perhaps not. i may be confusing my limited understanding of image manip algorithms.
one thing's for sure, it won't be half as long till we see that kind of improvement, the government will be using quantum computers to make every kind of coding technique we have utterly moot :)

jefhatfield
Jul 6, 2003, 09:09 PM
i made at least three threads over the years wondering about dual G4 laptops from apple

now that the G5 is out, i don't think there will be dual G4s....but maybe dual G5s

but make it like this...with ac power, let the machine be in dual mode as the default

and for battery mode, have the default be one processor with the option for two if the user wants to make it that way...i couldn't imagine any more than 90 minutes battery for a dual G5 laptop with a 12" inch screen and 4.6 lb form factor

shadowfax
Jul 6, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i made at least three threads over the years wondering about dual G4 laptops from apple

now that the G5 is out, i don't think there will be dual G4s....but maybe dual G5s

but make it like this...with ac power, let the machine be in dual mode as the default

and for battery mode, have the default be one processor with the option for two if the user wants to make it that way...i couldn't imagine any more than 90 minutes battery for a dual G5 laptop with a 12" inch screen and 4.6 lb form factor i still think the problem is waste. they are supposed to be portable, and the cooling and logic board placement for 2 chips would be outrageous. it would be more advantageous, i think, in any case to have a single processor with clock scaling, maybe dual cores with only one active till the load reaches a certain level or something. having 2 CPUs though still seems like such a waste. you still get more performance out of a doubly clocked proc, which would probably produce the same heat dissipation as duals.

jefhatfield
Jul 6, 2003, 09:20 PM
the battery sucking issues have been a plague on the laptop world for too many years, but at a certain point, dual processors in a laptop will become no big deal

shadowfax
Jul 6, 2003, 09:44 PM
right. which brings us to heating issues, which are the longterm ones. my argument is that you will never be able to get the processing power of s desktop in a laptop, it's a physical fact that will apply till processors stop producing heat. in that vein, why waste money on buying two processors when one will cook your privates just fine? ultimately all you're really wanting to do is pay more money so you can say "i have two hot little numbers in my lap."

jbomber
Jul 6, 2003, 10:41 PM
dual what?

in the what?

you wanna put what?

Frohickey
Jul 7, 2003, 12:35 AM
Actually, the reason that Apple came out with multiprocessor computers it to take the argument/point away from the Intel side.

Think about it, its a losing argument when the other side says they have multi-processor systems and you only have single processor systems. It allows Apple to retain/keep mindshare.

The losing-in-the-performance side just happened, when you have a mobile phone manufacturer that just so happens makes computer chips supplying you with microprocessors. :p

Besides, remember, Apple has been doing multiprocessor systems since the 604e days. Somehow, we stopped doing it during the Spindler/Amelio days. Hopefully, never again. There were lessons forgotten that had to be relearned. You can't afford that in this marketplace.

shadowfax
Jul 7, 2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, the reason that Apple came out with multiprocessor computers it to take the argument/point away from the Intel side.

Think about it, its a losing argument when the other side says they have multi-processor systems and you only have single processor systems. It allows Apple to retain/keep mindshare.

The losing-in-the-performance side just happened, when you have a mobile phone manufacturer that just so happens makes computer chips supplying you with microprocessors. :p

Besides, remember, Apple has been doing multiprocessor systems since the 604e days. Somehow, we stopped doing it during the Spindler/Amelio days. Hopefully, never again. There were lessons forgotten that had to be relearned. You can't afford that in this marketplace. multiple processors have for a long time been a scam to keep performance up. for apple, anyways. if one processor had been fast enough for any task a user could do, dual processors would have been a waste. this is why Pentium 4's don't do dual. it's not because intel wasn't smart enough to make them multiprocessor capable, it's because it would be a waste. it's not a winning argument at all that dual processors are better than one. i'd take a 2 GHz G4 over your dual 1 GHz G4s easily.

think of the bandwidth you would have, 2 MB of L3 cache streaming data at about 13 GB/s... of course, that 233 MHz non-DDR bus would still ruin it just as bad... but that would be a specatacle. and you want dual processors...

jbomber
Jul 7, 2003, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
in that vein, why waste money on buying two processors when one will cook your privates just fine? ultimately all you're really wanting to do is pay more money so you can say "i have two hot little numbers in my lap."

Hello Sterility! Heat, Airport signals, Bluetooth....

we're gonna need lead aprons to use these laptops soon....

Frohickey
Jul 7, 2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by jbomber
Hello Sterility! Heat, Airport signals, Bluetooth....

we're gonna need lead aprons to use these laptops soon....

Lead melts at around 621 degrees F.
I think you are going to want asbestos. :p

Frohickey
Jul 7, 2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
multiple processors have for a long time been a scam to keep performance up. for apple, anyways. if one processor had been fast enough for any task a user could do, dual processors would have been a waste. this is why Pentium 4's don't do dual. it's not because intel wasn't smart enough to make them multiprocessor capable, it's because it would be a waste. it's not a winning argument at all that dual processors are better than one. i'd take a 2 GHz G4 over your dual 1 GHz G4s easily.

think of the bandwidth you would have, 2 MB of L3 cache streaming data at about 13 GB/s... of course, that 233 MHz non-DDR bus would still ruin it just as bad... but that would be a specatacle. and you want dual processors...
If it was a scam, then why are professionals doing paid work on Macs and others pay premium money on multiprocessor systems. It must be that it works for them.

The reason is that the faster processor is just plain not available at all. That is just the reality of things. You want more, but its unavailable, so you put two or more together to get close to x N the performance.

233MHz? I think its still at 167MHz.

I agree with you that one running twice as fast is better than two running half as fast. But if you noticed, at least for the PowerMacs before the last ones, and the G5, the fastest processors had been used to make the dual processor ones.

They must have been hitting cooling limits, power limits, or both that made them throttle it down.

blogo
Jul 7, 2003, 03:09 AM
Ok, imagine there was a dual processor powerbook g5 and there was an optoin to turn of one of the cpu's to make the battery last longer.
Now, would you have to restart the machine everytime you switched to single- or dualmode? Is letting you do this actually healthy to the system?

Can somone with the proper knowledge here explain how this could be done in the real world?

shadowfax
Jul 7, 2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Frohickey
If it was a scam, then why are professionals doing paid work on Macs and others pay premium money on multiprocessor systems. It must be that it works for them.

The reason is that the faster processor is just plain not available at all. That is just the reality of things. You want more, but its unavailable, so you put two or more together to get close to x N the performance.

233MHz? I think its still at 167MHz.

I agree with you that one running twice as fast is better than two running half as fast. But if you noticed, at least for the PowerMacs before the last ones, and the G5, the fastest processors had been used to make the dual processor ones.

They must have been hitting cooling limits, power limits, or both that made them throttle it down. yes, but escape your mac world to intel's, and notice that dual processors are rare, and they still have really high-performance chips. that's what i mean by scam, it was just a way for apple to get performance that came even close to intel as motorola pumped out poor performing chips.

the power has just been unavailable in the PPC world.

Eple--with today's technology, not at all. if they put them into a laptop, you would be able to reactivate the processor at will.

NavyIntel007
Jul 7, 2003, 10:55 AM
Dual processors would be possible but you wouldn't get dual 1.5 Ghz. Instead you'd get dual 800 Mhz that has similar performance as a single 1.5 Ghz. at least half of the power usage. Of course that wouldn't immediately equate to double the battery life because Apple would give you less battery. But having less battery would allow for a lower weight.

It'd be a harder sell because it seems like the industry thinks that people only glance at the numbers and not the word "DUAL" in front of it. 8 hour battery life or more would be a super selling point however.

People need to just realize here that if Apple creates a dual processor laptop, it will be for different reasons than them making a dual processor desktop.

jefhatfield
Jul 7, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
yes, but escape your mac world to intel's, and notice that dual processors are rare, and they still have really high-performance chips.

that is a good point

even many servers (where you would find dual chips) are quite happy running one cpu

i do run into pc techies who like dualies just for the sake of having two processors, even if it really does not have a noticeable lift in performance:p

shadowfax
Jul 7, 2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Dual processors would be possible but you wouldn't get dual 1.5 Ghz. Instead you'd get dual 800 Mhz that has similar performance as a single 1.5 Ghz. at least half of the power usage. Of course that wouldn't immediately equate to double the battery life because Apple would give you less battery. But having less battery would allow for a lower weight.

It'd be a harder sell because it seems like the industry thinks that people only glance at the numbers and not the word "DUAL" in front of it. 8 hour battery life or more would be a super selling point however.

People need to just realize here that if Apple creates a dual processor laptop, it will be for different reasons than them making a dual processor desktop. where did you get that running two processors at half the clock rate would use half the power as one at double the dual clocks? is that proven?

...or did you mean that it would use half the power when one was turned off? that's a huge price to pay for portability, i like my battery life on mt TiBook without scaling the clock down or anything.

**************
what makes this all so laughable to me is that people come in and say, oh, let's make out laptops like desktops! i want an alienware apple laptop! dual 2Ghz G5s @ 90nm, with a 2 inch radiator on the back! word!

what would be impressive in the laptop world, in lieu of dual processors, which takes up much more space given the cooling logistics requirements as well as the pin requirements, is processors with powersaving features that were actually implemented at the most basic levels. instead of 2 processors, 2 cores on one CPU. one shuts down when usage is low, as does one of the FPUs on the other, and one of the altivec processors, and so on. the savings on power would be real, but the second processor demand went up it would come back on full, the clock would scale up to max, and you wouldn't notice a performance hit like running a single CPU at half the clock rate. this is the kind of thing intel in playing with in Centrino. Apple really needs it.

shadowfax
Jul 7, 2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i do run into pc techies who like dualies just for the sake of having two processors, even if it really does not have a noticeable lift in performance:p yeah, exactly. and i agree with that in a world where you have all the cooling you need, and you can afford it. dual procs is fun to say, i love them. but that's a huge price to pay, and not in $$$, when it comes to laptops, IMO.