PDA

View Full Version : 90nm PowerMac G5s in March 2004?


MacRumors
Nov 19, 2003, 05:20 PM
Appleinsider posted a small update (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=246) today reporting that second generation PowerMac G5s would make an appearance by March 2004. The new machines are reported to have advanced features including 533 DDR II RAM support and up to 1.5GHz bus as well as the incorporation of 90nm G5s and "Power Tune" technology.

As previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031113110834.shtml), IBM will be presenting 90nm PowerPC 970 technology at the ISSCC in Feb 2004. First reference to "PowerTune" was seen in the advance program (PDF) (http://www.isscc.org/isscc/2004/ap/ISSCC2004_AdvanceProgram.pdf) where it is briefly described under "PowerTune: Advanced Frequency and Power Scaling on 64b PowerPC Microprocessor" (Page 59)


PowerTune is a power-management technique for a multi-gigahertz superscalar 64b PowerPC processor in a 90nm technology. This paper discusses the challenges and implementation of a dynamically controlled clock frequency with noise suppression as well as a synchronization circuit for a multi-processor system.


It's not completely clear how these new machines would fit with Appleinsider's previous claim (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031112123844.shtml) that PowerMacs would see revisions in January 2004.

JtheLemur
Nov 19, 2003, 05:22 PM
Soooo anybody wanna buy my Dual 2.0GHz G5? =D

Stike
Nov 19, 2003, 05:25 PM
As Steve said - very promising roadmap!
This PowerTune feature sounds like one of Apple´s request to be able to cram the G5 in a PowerBook...

mislabeledstar
Nov 19, 2003, 05:26 PM
announce in january, ship in march......

no, apple would never do that

ennerseed
Nov 19, 2003, 05:26 PM
1.5Ghz Bus... Would it be safe to say these are going to be 3Ghz Chips then?

jettredmont
Nov 19, 2003, 05:28 PM
Stating the obvious:

1.5GHz bus == 3.0GHz processors at the high end.

adamfilip
Nov 19, 2003, 05:28 PM
um cool!

GUSTO
Nov 19, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by JtheLemur
Soooo anybody wanna buy my Dual 2.0GHz G5? =D

LOL yeah me 2 :D

DDR 2,1.5Ghz OMG!!!!!!!!!

DrGruv1
Nov 19, 2003, 05:30 PM
or still summer wait?

jettredmont
Nov 19, 2003, 05:31 PM
Actually, the article just says the system controller will suppoprt up to 1.5GHz. Which would seem to put the post-3.0GHz machines will need a revamped controller ...

DrGruv1
Nov 19, 2003, 05:31 PM
3 gig in march?

or summer still...

Stike
Nov 19, 2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by DrGruv1
or still summer wait?

If the NEXT revision brings the G5 to 3 GHz in March, IBM would be faster designing than they can produce the CPUs ;)
And Steve would have toned down his bragging "within 12 months" for nothing.

areyouwishing
Nov 19, 2003, 05:35 PM
This is VERY promising, and VERY realistic.

I am so overjoyed at the thought that Intel is slowing down, and Apple is speeding up.

The G5 truly marks a turning point in the future of Apple Hardware. People will be speaking of this for years to come.

Freg3000
Nov 19, 2003, 05:38 PM
Wow, 1.5 Ghz bus. and I think 2:1 is the largest bus multiplier. i don't think there is a 1.5:1 multiplier. I know there are 3:1, 4:1 and so one. But 1.5 would definetly imply 3 Ghz.

Hmmmmm......

Wombatronic
Nov 19, 2003, 05:39 PM
To recap:

DrGruv: 3 gog hz sooer? or still summer wait?

became

DrGruv: 3 gig in march? or summer still?

I think that fast typing does not explain this. I suspect, rather, that DrGruv is completely insane :)

evolu
Nov 19, 2003, 05:40 PM
Hey! What's my jaw doing on the floor?

DrGruv1
Nov 19, 2003, 05:41 PM
:o :D :) :( ;) :mad: :rolleyes: :confused: :eek: :cool:

evolu
Nov 19, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Wombatronic
I think that fast typing does not explain this. I suspect, rather, that DrGruv is completely insane :)

hilarious

yoman
Nov 19, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by areyouwishing
This is VERY promising, and VERY realistic.

I am so overjoyed at the thought that Intel is slowing down, and Apple is speeding up.

The G5 truly marks a turning point in the future of Apple Hardware. People will be speaking of this for years to come.

Wouldn't it be neat if all of a sudden Apple had faster clocked chipsets than Intel. My my that would be a nice turning of tables.
:) :D

gwuMACaddict
Nov 19, 2003, 05:49 PM
as much as i doubt it... i REEEEEAALLY hope its true

:D :D :D

neverfade
Nov 19, 2003, 05:50 PM
Yeah, I got a dual 2, and even though I always want the biggest and newest - Man, my dual 2 is SWEET, and I am very content with it and expect to be content with it for years to come...

... by no means do I need the newest now that I have my Dual 2. Great machine.

punter
Nov 19, 2003, 05:58 PM
for those that bought 2x2GHz machines, don't worry, I will buy them off you. I'm hoping to get 1100 of them :P

the current machines are arguably faster then the current production pcs... Hopefully by march there will be no doubt!!

Hopefully by march I will be rich enough again :)

ThomasJefferson
Nov 19, 2003, 05:58 PM
Announced in March 04. Shipping in October 04?

So pleased I always wait for the second version ...

Macmaniac
Nov 19, 2003, 05:58 PM
That thing would render photoshop effects before your you select em:)
I want one for Warcraft 3;)

Waluigi
Nov 19, 2003, 05:59 PM
I have a Dual 2GHz, but I'm not upgrading for a few years. I'm just happy that apple is getting better and better, no matter how 'slow' my G5 becomes compared to their top of the line machine. GREAT NEWS!!!!!! Bring em' on!

--Waluigi

gwuMACaddict
Nov 19, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by punter
for those that bought 2x2GHz machines, don't worry, I will buy them off you. I'm hoping to get 1100 of them :P



hahahah! fantastic

as long as you promise to fold

maxvamp
Nov 19, 2003, 06:11 PM
Would it be more realistic to think that at some time in the spring a PB G5 shows up? After all, this processor has dynamic clocking and since it is built on 90nm, has the potential to run cooler at slower clock rates.... Also, shouldn’t Apple run like hell away from MOTO at this point?

Just some thoughts. I have not kept track of the PowerBook release cycle all that closely.

Max.


:D

dracoleb
Nov 19, 2003, 06:19 PM
I can't wait until they go past 3.2 GHz. If Intel keeps sitting on their ass and not making any new chips then we might see the G5 surpass the Pentium in clock speed. Now while every Mac user knows that clock speed isn't everything it would let Mac users really say "shove it" to intel. Maybe then the UK will allow "The World fastest Personal Computer" ads

sharky2313
Nov 19, 2003, 06:27 PM
new powerbooks announced this winter? what do you think??

x86isslow
Nov 19, 2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by maxvamp
<snip>

Also, shouldn’t Apple run like hell away from MOTO at this point?

Just some thoughts. I have not kept track of the PowerBook release cycle all that closely.


but keep in mind that apple still uses the G4 (still a versatile chip) for other models in its line up- emac, ibook, imac, which were all very recently updated.

so even if apple does move away from the moto chipsets for their pro line+xserve, they cant leave moto immediately.

we can always hope that the powerbook goes g5 sooner than later so the ibooks- which are crippled in speed so they dont interfere with pro sales will have growing room- imagine a 1.42 Ghz ibook rounding out the apple line- then there will be No macs still in mhz territory !!

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 19, 2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by maxvamp
Would it be more realistic to think that at some time in the spring a PB G5 shows up? After all, this processor has dynamic clocking and since it is built on 90nm, has the potential to run cooler at slower clock rates.... Also, shouldn’t Apple run like hell away from MOTO at this point?

Just some thoughts. I have not kept track of the PowerBook release cycle all that closely.

Max.


:D you got that right we are talking 1.5 ghz bus? and moto's g4 is 167? running might take to long, v6 or v8 should do it! really its time to move on. save the g4 for emac and ibook and everything else needs a boost. i mean a G5

dho
Nov 19, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by JtheLemur
Soooo anybody wanna buy my Dual 2.0GHz G5? =D

I would be glad to take that horribly slow machine off your hands, free of charge :)

sethypoo
Nov 19, 2003, 07:01 PM
I hope the PowerBook G5 is sturdy enough for me to slap it across the faces of all my windows loving friends.....this is unrefutable proof that the Mac rules.

No, I am no zealot. But a 64 bit processor in a laptop?!? Please! Windows/intel have nothing on that, and won't for years.

whocares
Nov 19, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by yoman
Wouldn't it be neat if all of a sudden Apple had faster clocked chipsets than Intel. My my that would be a nice turning of tables.
:) :D

I can already see the news headlines ;):

"Intel and the MHz Myth: clock speed isn't the full story!"

"Intel's CEO (tries to, editors note) explains why the P5 3.5GHz is faster than a 4GHz G6"

WBROTFLMAO*



(WB: will be)

whocares
Nov 19, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
I hope the PowerBook G5 is sturdy enough for me to slap it across the faces of all my windows loving friends.....this is unrefutable proof that the Mac rules.


Won't you risk messing up the PBook? I suggest you ask Apple for a complementary baseball bat. No, I'm not a zealot either.

york2600
Nov 19, 2003, 07:08 PM
It's really great to see power management features available for the inclusion of the G5 into a laptop, but it's also good to know that these features will make it into the desktop line. Power usage is power usage anywhere. Cut the power consumption of a processor in 1/2 during low load times and you're going to see happy colleges with big mac labs. I know for sure that the lab admins here at Humboldt State in CA are going to be very happy with this. G4 heat/noise/power issues are a real pain. The air conditioner had to be beefed up for the G4 lab.

Wyrm
Nov 19, 2003, 07:12 PM
90nm means the chip area is less than half of the ones at 130nm - assuming a similar area used that leaves a lot of area for goodies.

IBM might up the on-chip cache. That would probably have the best improvement bang/transitor. 1MB, 2MB? Whereas radically changing components - like adding another AltiVec unit, instruction grouping, functional units, etc etc, might take too much time and have varied results. For that we have to wait for the 970+1.

Or they could use the area to put a memory controller ala SparcIIi, SparcIIIi, and Opteron types.

Even if the chip doesn't technically reach 3Ghz next summer it could potentially be 3:2 times faster with architectural optimizations and increased cache (maybe a smaller heatsink too).

-Wyrm

sethypoo
Nov 19, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by whocares
Won't you risk messing up the PBook. I suggest you ask Apple for a complementary baseball bat. No, I not a zealot eiher.

[Emails Apple].

:) :rolleyes: :D

Wyrm
Nov 19, 2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
I hope the PowerBook G5 is sturdy enough for me to slap it across the faces of all my windows loving friends.....this is unrefutable proof that the Mac rules.

No, I am no zealot. But a 64 bit processor in a laptop?!? Please! Windows/intel have nothing on that, and won't for years.

Neither would Apple, Panther is still 32 bit <minus the Smeagol extensions - which are 64bit hacks> so it really doesn't matter.

AMD beat Apple to 64bit processor in a laptop - old story, but the AMD64 is in laptop form. Win64 is coming out, and Linux has a 64bit AMD branch (used by at least SUSE).

You're right about Intel... their only 64bit solution needs 800W... not something you could integrate into a laptop for a while.

-Wyrm

kcmac
Nov 19, 2003, 07:28 PM
I can't wait until they go past 3.2 GHz. If Intel keeps sitting on their ass and not making any new chips then we might see the G5 surpass the Pentium in clock speed.

Now that is just crazy talk. :eek:

applekid
Nov 19, 2003, 07:29 PM
My offer to any Dual 2 GHz G5 owners: 10 bucks (USD) with shipping!

That's right. I went there. Ohhhh, yes. You know I've got the best deal in town! It's an offer that you can't refuse.

:)

I have a question. Will we ever see L3 cache again? G5s have a large L2 cache, but no L3 at all? You think we'll ever need it again? :confused:

But I think our true opponent is AMD now. Those 64-bit chips are quite threatening. OS updates from Windows and Linux on the way just to take advantage of it. It's already in a laptop. UT2K3 will get a 64-bit version! It's a gamer's dream processor! In that sense, G5s are from caught up looking at the future user base. And I think that somewhat unfair PCWorld isn't very good rep. Yes, it's unfair to some degree, but people have read it and probably believe it.

joelypolly
Nov 19, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
I hope the PowerBook G5 is sturdy enough for me to slap it across the faces of all my windows loving friends.....this is unrefutable proof that the Mac rules.

No, I am no zealot. But a 64 bit processor in a laptop?!? Please! Windows/intel have nothing on that, and won't for years.

Well wintel is already there so i guess its already too late
the Athlon 64 is in laptops at the moment

Rocketman
Nov 19, 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by maxvamp
Also, shouldn’t Apple run like hell away from MOTO at this point?


I thought they already were. That'show it looks to the outside world.

Rocketman

manitoubalck
Nov 19, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
The new machines are reported to have advanced features including 533 DDR II RAM support and up to 1.5GHz bus as well as the incorporation of 90nm G5s and "Power Tune" technology.

DDRII is very veey expencive that's why Nvidia and Ati stopped using it. DDR533 already exists this would seem a more logical move. RDRAM1066 RIMM's may even be cheaper than DDRII at this time.

I would love to see how AMD reacts, to a 90nm 32/64-bit CPU from IBM. @ 90nm the core should easily be able to push past the 3GHz mark.

can't wait.

ITR 81
Nov 19, 2003, 08:04 PM
I'm just figuring that in Jan 2005 Apple will release it's 3.5 dual GHz G5 which for me will really challenge anything from Intel or AMD.

I figure by the 3GHz which will come out around the middle of this yr and with 90nm processor leads me to believe the G5 PB would follow shortly there after.

I believe the new 3GHz will probably come std with higher std HD, 1GB of ram, 9800 ATi card.

howard
Nov 19, 2003, 08:23 PM
don't worry guys intel will be i'm sure throwing out some fast processors pretty soon.

i'm just glad we're at least competeing with them again. now instead of saying...oh pcs are faster at this..oh macs are faster than this...we can just say, they're both super fast, so pick for design and operating system...which to me the mac wins

Lanbrown
Nov 19, 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Wyrm
AMD beat Apple to 64bit processor in a laptop - old story, but the AMD64 is in laptop form. Win64 is coming out, and Linux has a 64bit AMD branch (used by at least SUSE).

Naturetech and Tadpole beat AMD to it. There have been 64-bit laptops and portables for years now, with a proven 64-bit OS.

Wonder Boy
Nov 19, 2003, 08:45 PM
rev b g5 or move out of the parents house? what to do, what to do...

who we kidding, im getting the computer!:D

ClimbingTheLog
Nov 19, 2003, 09:09 PM
I was just saying this a couple days ago:
Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog

In fact, the iMac would be a great machine to introduce the concept of variable-clock CPU's. When the CPU load is low, throttle the CPU back to 100MHz. The G5 would barely feel warm. When Photoshop is crunching through a filter, crank the clock, maybe even turn on a fan. But when it's sitting on the desk and you're not doing anything but wasting time at MacRumors, keep it quiet.
While I'm glad they're listening, I wonder if MacRumors will take my royalty checks in escrow, for a cut of course. :D

yoman
Nov 19, 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by howard
don't worry guys intel will be i'm sure throwing out some fast processors pretty soon.

i'm just glad we're at least competeing with them again. now instead of saying...oh pcs are faster at this..oh macs are faster than this...we can just say, they're both super fast, so pick for design and operating system...which to me the mac wins

That is true that Intel could possibly offer faster chips in the near future but I personally have heard nothing of the sort. The fastest Pentium I know of to find in a desktop is around 3.2Ghz. If they do release something i wonder when and how fast?
:cool:

dracoleb
Nov 19, 2003, 10:12 PM
No they will just toss on a L4 cache and call it the Pentium 4 Hyper Threading Extreme Edition Super Ultra XP

Originally posted by howard
don't worry guys intel will be i'm sure throwing out some fast processors pretty soon.



edit: added quote

Awimoway
Nov 19, 2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
as much as i doubt it... i REEEEEAALLY hope its true


It occurs to me that what we, the many MacRumors readers, need to do is pool together our funds to buy ourselves a quality contact inside IBM so that we have hard facts to work with. ;) :D

eirik
Nov 19, 2003, 10:43 PM
Intel has BILLIIONS to plow into chips. I wouldn't be confident in IBM delivering something that radically outperforms Intel by end of next summer. I'd sure like to see it. I'd sure like to see all IBM's efforts in SoI, high K, strained silicon (Intel doing this too), SMT, dynamic power and frequency management, and whatever else.

Speaking of whatever else, I hope we see an on-chip memory controller, more L2, radically better Integer performance (another unit or just better use of existing), and improved AltiVec (include some of those functions in the G4+ that the G5 lacks). Oh yeah, one more thing, wider pipes for main memory (provided there's a practical main memory and motherboard solution). I'm not so gung-ho about a dual core 980 unless IBM and Apple can feed the CPU enough data from main memory to make it worthwhile.

As for the next three months, I agree that we'll see a speed bump. I don't accept the notion that heat dissipation alone precluded Apple from throwing 970's into iMacs.

Anyway, I wonder if IBM offered Apple a choice regarding production volume: higher volume in 130 nm 970s now, pushing 90 nm 970s out. Or, just enough volume for the PowerMac line now, with a quicker availability of 90 nm 970s so Apple can offer faster units for PowerMacs, lower power units for PowerBooks, and plenty left over for iMacs.

Well hell, I don't know jack about IBM's production capacity. Who here really does? Remember, Fishkill is not dedicated to 970 production. Other products are manufactured there as well.

As for xServe, IBM announced 1.6 GHz 970s for its blade offering. Apple could almost certainly do the same. Question is, why not already? At 130 nm, the 1.6 GHz 970 heat dissipation is comparable to Intel/AMD beasts. So why is IBM delivering its first 970 finished product in January? Could it have something to do with optimizing Linux (and AIX) and other software for the 970? I wish I knew. Another point, with servers, heat dissipation noise (fans) aren't a problem. Though, the electricity costs do matter.

I've ranted too long again.

Eirik

TomSmithMacEd
Nov 19, 2003, 10:59 PM
Hey, with a smaller design you may be able to hold more internal hard drives like the g4's always could. Just dream...

dual 3ghz G5
8gb 533 DDR II
4 x 250gb 7200rpm
readeon 9800 pro
superdrive
and of course dual 30" apple monitors. (when are these coming out.)

AVALONdesign
Nov 19, 2003, 11:12 PM
Perhaps Apple is waiting for the next generation G5s before putting them into the next Xserve.

Gyroscope
Nov 19, 2003, 11:32 PM
Altough I agree that it would be very hard for IBM to significantly outperform Intel on the pure horsepower basis, it would be interesting to look at bigger picture here. Ask yourself one question? What is the PC of the near future? In my opinion near- future will belong to neatly designed, silent, small factor PC's with preference put to energy conservation and ease of use. Here I think Apple-IBM(or even Moto) could have a clear winner. PowerPC design allows more bang per Watt used, combined with Apple expertise in ergonomics and ease of use could make really interesting alternative to Intel based PCs. Most Intel CPU offerings are consuming >90 W and therefore require massive cooling effort that results in something like big G5 box :p(just much uglier). If Intel continues to go down this road, I am afraid that point will be reached where significant market segments won't be able to justify gains in speed at the cost of above mentioned benefits. So as long as IBM (maybe even AMD) are chuggin along I will be perfectly happy chap.

ITR 81
Nov 19, 2003, 11:39 PM
Who knows they could come out in Jan. for all we know right now. Apple is very hush hush about it's Xserve.

illumin8
Nov 19, 2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by applekid
I have a question. Will we ever see L3 cache again? G5s have a large L2 cache, but no L3 at all? You think we'll ever need it again? :confused:
The answer is no, I don't think you'll see L3 cache again for a while unless the memory speed stays the same and the processors get to 8 ghz. Think about this for a moment:

The fastest G4 processor ran at 1.42 ghz.
The L3 cache ran at 1/2 processor speed, so about 700 mhz.

On the dual G5 your memory is running at 800 mhz. (2 channels of DDR 400) and your bus is 1 ghz. so your memory is effectively faster than L3 cache was on the G4. There's really no need for the L3 at all at that point. The L3 cache was just a "short-term" measure to get around the fact that bus speed was so slow on the Motorola processors.

Flynnstone
Nov 19, 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Freg3000
Wow, 1.5 Ghz bus. and I think 2:1 is the largest bus multiplier. i don't think there is a 1.5:1 multiplier. I know there are 3:1, 4:1 and so one. But 1.5 would definetly imply 3 Ghz.

Hmmmmm......

My understanding of the bus multiplers is : 1:1, 2:1, 4:1, 8:1.
Of course we are only interested in 1:1 and 2:1 :D
The bus interface between the processor(s) is Hypertransportish. They don't say it's HyperTransport, but looking at the datait sure looks like HyperTransport.
So my theory is its effectively HyperTransport, but by not calling it HyperTransport they don't have to conform to the spec. Easier to crank up the speed :) and speed is good :) :)

ImAlwaysRight
Nov 19, 2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
Who knows they could come out in Jan. for all we know right now. Apple is very hush hush about it's Xserve.
Reality check, people. Apple announced the dual 2.0 this summer (June/July, me forgets already), and doesn't ship in volume until late Sept, yet some think based on this rumor we will see 3.0 GHz G5 in Jan? Unless you mean 2005, I really don't think so.Shipping in July 2004, maybe. But, a boy can dream!

TyleRomeo
Nov 20, 2003, 12:04 AM
there will be one more 970 G5 at .13 in January/February around 2.4GHZ.

The .09 970 G5 will be not be ready until next summer when with a 1.5GHZ bus implies a 3GHZ G5 like Steve promised us.

Go Apple

Tyler

dongmin
Nov 20, 2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by ImAlwaysRight
Reality check, people. Apple announced the dual 2.0 this summer (June/July, me forgets already), and doesn't ship in volume until late Sept, yet some think based on this rumor we will see 3.0 GHz G5 in Jan? Unless you mean 2005, I really don't think so.Shipping in July 2004, maybe. But, a boy can dream! true, but this was the this past summer was the first installment of the G5. The first iteration always has a lot of production issues and software issues to work out. The second round should come more immediately. As long as IBM can supply the chips, Apple shouldn't have too much trouble pumping out the boxes. And from all we've heard, IBM is getting good yields on the 970s.

Gymnut
Nov 20, 2003, 12:29 AM
Motorola? A rebuttal?

*echo*
*pin-drop*
*crickets*
*passing gas*

manitoubalck
Nov 20, 2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
dual 3ghz G5
******8gb 533 DDR II*****
4 x 250gb 7200rpm
readeon 9800 pro
superdrive


Deos anyone make DDRII DIMMS yet, I know that they exist on some graphics cards but It's unlikley to go into system memory when DDR chips are up to 850MHz (2x425 MHz) which is in the GeForce FX5900.


Also "The DDR-II memory is expensive, not yet available in sufficient quantities and only supports a 128-bit bus," from www.tomshareware.com

PoCoTex
Nov 20, 2003, 02:08 AM
Has anyone seen a picture of the trend of PowerMac capabilities, i.e., the combination of CPU speed, bus speed, and maximum RAM? Would that give us an even better indication of short-term and long-term Apple hardware futures? The reason I ask is because I'm advising some of my friends to wait on buying iMacs until Apple bump up their CPUs to G5s and bus speeds to something far beyond the miserly 167 MHz.

If memory serves, previous MacForums threads have said that that Apple tend to make significant PowerMac annoucements twice a year or so.

Wyrm
Nov 20, 2003, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
Naturetech and Tadpole beat AMD to it. There have been 64-bit laptops and portables for years now, with a proven 64-bit OS.

Yeah I was thinking about mentioning an *Sparc driven laptop - but they don't really seem to be in the running. I guess technically WinCE is also 64bit when it comes to the Mips cores... but then that's not what I'd call stable. :D

-Wyrm

Analog Kid
Nov 20, 2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by maxvamp
Would it be more realistic to think that at some time in the spring a PB G5 shows up? After all, this processor has dynamic clocking and since it is built on 90nm, has the potential to run cooler at slower clock rates.... Also, shouldn’t Apple run like hell away from MOTO at this point?


Might, but I'd still think late summer... If this is accurate they're making 3 major heat improvements:
Shrinking the CPU
Shrinking the system controller
Moving to DDR2

I did the calculations a while back and don't care to do it again, but there was a huge reduction in power going from DDR to DDR2. Micron has some decent data sheets.

And DDR2 will get cheaper as volumes go up.

How sweet is it that we're talking about using technologies as they emerge rather than having to hunt and scrounge for the obsolete stuff?!

Don't expect a 1.5GHz bus in a laptop, obviously...

Analog Kid
Nov 20, 2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by applekid
I have a question. Will we ever see L3 cache again? G5s have a large L2 cache, but no L3 at all? You think we'll ever need it again? :confused:

But I think our true opponent is AMD now. Those 64-bit chips are quite threatening.

I hope we don't need L3 anytime soon... It's hot and expensive.

AMD isn't the opponent-- they're an ally. The greater the diversity of systems, the more likely people are to be shaken from their stupor and consider new options.

Before there were two choices Wintel and Apple, and it was easy to believe that going with the machine that had greatest market share was the right choice-- because everyone else was making it. Now Intel looks weaker than it has in a very long time... The hounds are closing in-- testing its strength.

If it was only Intel and Apple, people might take the "there's no need for 64bits on the desktop" as the wisdom of a market leader. Now, people view it as what Intel has to say since they don't have a reasonable 64bit offering. At least not yet.

I'm for anything that mars the monolith.

Analog Kid
Nov 20, 2003, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Awimoway
It occurs to me that what we, the many MacRumors readers, need to do is pool together our funds to buy ourselves a quality contact inside IBM so that we have hard facts to work with. ;) :D
:D
I got $20.

Analog Kid
Nov 20, 2003, 04:04 AM
As long as we're basing our reality on the rumor:

The system controller is capable of 1.5GHz, but that doesn't mean the first units will use that capability. The first ones could just as easily run at 2.4GHz...

Was PowerTune one of the 980 features? Nothing in the article says this is a 970...

backspinner
Nov 20, 2003, 04:05 AM
Remember, Fishkill is not dedicated to 970 production
I buy fpga chips from Xilinx that are produced in Fishkill as well. They are 90nm and very fast. The Fishkill plant is very flexible and has a lot of capacity. This fab will not hold back faster Macs, the designs will but not the plant.

aethier
Nov 20, 2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by yoman
That is true that Intel could possibly offer faster chips in the near future but I personally have heard nothing of the sort. The fastest Pentium I know of to find in a desktop is around 3.2Ghz. If they do release something i wonder when and how fast?
:cool:

THey alrady have a 3.4 chip in the P4 Extreme edition line up. (modified xeon)

aethier

Dont Hurt Me
Nov 20, 2003, 07:11 AM
look at the specs of the g5 and bus then look at g4 and bus??The Gap or rather crater is getting bigger and bigger, 1.5 ghz bus vs .167 ghz? 2 or perhaps 2.5 ghz vs 1.25 or is it 1.3. a single 1.6 g5 is matching a dual 1.42 g4. lets hope all this G5 stuff comes to pass soon and Apple gets those G4's out of most the line up. If i had to say in the last 2 years what has hurt apple sales more then any single thing it would have to be the lame G4,say what you want but in the computer world speed sells. the sooner the 90 nm g5's get into production the better.:cool:

Eric_Z
Nov 20, 2003, 07:25 AM
It's not completely clear how these 90nm G5 machines would fit with Appleinsider's previous claim that PowerMacs would see revisions in January 2004.

The 130nm 970 can still be clocked to 2.5 Ghz you know, they'll run damned hot but it's still perfectly doable.
Plus it'll make a nice and smooth transition from 2Ghz to 2.5Gz to 3,0Ghz(1,5Ghz fsb).

the_mole1314
Nov 20, 2003, 07:42 AM
1.5 GIGAHERTZ FRONT SIZE BUS!!!

HOLY! A macho P4 Dell only has 800mhz!

Rocketman
Nov 20, 2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by the_mole1314
1.5 GIGAHERTZ FRONT SIZE BUS!!!

HOLY! A macho P4 Dell only has 800mhz!

When Steve said 3 Ghz by late summer 04 he didn't say whether it was the processoror the FSB:)

3 Ghz FSB = 6 Ghz G5's here we come!

:)

Hi Steve!

robg
Nov 20, 2003, 08:37 AM
As far as people discussing the Fishkill plant--

When KLA-Tencor was first offered the job (of providing the testing equip and such at Fishkill) they decided it was their chance to show that they can beat out Applied. They went all out on the job, so trust me when I say Fishkill will not be a hold-up anymore.

I believe the earlier hold-up was due to some quirks in the first run of the chips. This always happens, you never know what may go wrong until you actually start pressing cores. I believe now since they have the initial design ready to go things will just start flying off the line.

At the same time, if IBM is to announce this silicon in February, chances are they will be ready to start the first run just then. I doubt that they will allow Apple to announce a product carrying the new chip until IBM has had a chance to get all the PR for releasing it themselves. They don't want Apple to steal their thunder, because IBM is looking at this to be the next big server platform for DB2, Websphere, and all their other applications.

jcshas
Nov 20, 2003, 08:43 AM
WOW! ""I Feel the need...the need for speed"

copperpipe
Nov 20, 2003, 08:43 AM
dual 3 Ghz with all those extras? YAAAACK! Phew phew, that is disgusting. The raw speed of it offends my stomach, and I wretch in glorious tribute to it's disgusting power...

Seriously, my 2gz is still making me feel a little guilty . Do I deserve such speed and power? It happens whenever I open sherlock or some other program and it comes up - like - instantly. Somewhere in the back of my brain I hear "you're not worthy!". This 3 gz is gonna kill my self esteem.


Pipe, Copper...

Kid Red
Nov 20, 2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by AVALONdesign
Perhaps Apple is waiting for the next generation G5s before putting them into the next Xserve.

I've always wondered why IBM would just sit back and let Apple put G5s in the Xserve thinking it's aiding the competition. However, the Xserve's have yet to come out leading me to think maybe IBM had an agreement with Apple to get G5s to the desktop while IBM gets the Power 4-5 going on it's server's first. So the trickle down 970 and 980 for Apple happen first for the desktops, but after IBM get the server market going.

JW Pepper
Nov 20, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Wyrm
90nm means the chip area is less than half of the ones at 130nm - assuming a similar area used that leaves a lot of area for goodies.....

IEven if the chip doesn't technically reach 3Ghz next summer it could potentially be 3:2 times faster with architectural optimizations and increased cache (maybe a smaller heatsink too).

-Wyrm

Does this mean they designed that huge new case with all it's sophisticated cooling for nothing?

i_wolf
Nov 20, 2003, 12:45 PM
just one point. I heard earlier someone griping about integer performance. I think this is a huge misconception. Currently integer perf is bang up there with the best of em particularly in dual processor systems where integer scores are better than dual xeon 3GHz+ systems.
Furthermore, let us not forget that only recently a compiler was released that could work the dual fully featured integer units. And work them in parallel as they were designed. GCC does not do this. The integer situation is most definately improving BIG TIME. as ars technica users have noted in teh forums. Its just the the design of the IBM 970 is so radical that new compilers are really needed to get it to run at its potential.
Furthermore, Altivec is able to boost integer numbers im told. Big time.
This is another area in compiler techniques where performance is going to sky rocket on the G5. Particularly on the same hardware. The bench's you see today on your dual 2GHz will skyrocket tomorrow as compilers are improved for the architecture. Furthermore , GCC does not autovectorise code for altivec. On the x86 side, GCC and intel C compielr autovectorise for intels and amd SSE and SSE2 extensions.
IBM have already promised that the next feature of their XLC and XLF compilers will be autovectorising for altivec. This will bring a massive improvement in both integer and fpu.
I think apart from Motorola not being able to scale their G4 processors fast enough.... they just didn't support them properly. They should have had an autovectorising compiler out years ago, like amd and intel had. If they weren't going to produce one themselves like IBM, at the very least they should have worked with APPLE on the GCC, a bit like the way IBM is hoping that its techniques in XLF and XLC are being worked into GCC... or at least thats what we are led to believe. Also with autovectorisation.
On a separate note, those you you who knew that i was having major heart ache with my recent apple order. I got a phone call today apologising. I have been told that they will ship my iBook to me separately free shipping so that i am not waiting any longer to get going.... and apparantly my G5 is currently in production and should be out of production in a day or two and should be with me friday week,
Fingers crossed!

tortoise
Nov 20, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
No, I am no zealot. But a 64 bit processor in a laptop?!? Please! Windows/intel have nothing on that, and won't for years.

Ahem, low-power (mobile friendly) Opterons/AMD64 processors and 64-bit Windoze XP are expected to be available relatively soon i.e. no later than one is likely to get a 64-bit PB, and possibly earlier. (Not that OS X is 64-bit as of v10.3, even though it runs natively on 64-bit CPUs.)

Apple is no longer competing with Intel, they are competing with AMD. AMD64 is an elegant and very scalable architecture that can give PPC a run for its money without breaking a sweat, and they are not standing still. I have no idea what Intel is doing, perhaps examining their navels.

sethypoo
Nov 20, 2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
Ahem, low-power (mobile friendly) Opterons/AMD64 processors and 64-bit Windoze XP are expected to be available relatively soon i.e. no later than one is likely to get a 64-bit PB, and possibly earlier. (Not that OS X is 64-bit as of v10.3, even though it runs natively on 64-bit CPUs.)

Apple is no longer competing with Intel, they are competing with AMD. AMD64 is an elegant and very scalable architecture that can give PPC a run for its money without breaking a sweat, and they are not standing still. I have no idea what Intel is doing, perhaps examining their navels.

Apple is competing with any company still on the market, wheter it be AMD or intel.

The PPC, unlike the AMD64, is much more scalable because IBM is behind it. We all know that "Big Blue" may be a hard pill to swallow, but in the end they can and will out perform AMD.

Windows XP is looking like it will be postponed to near-longhorn preportions. microsoft might even add it into longhorn, which is quite a ways off.

tortoise
Nov 20, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Wyrm
Or they could use the area to put a memory controller ala SparcIIi, SparcIIIi, and Opteron types.

I hope they do this. It is the primary reason Opterons tend to be a bit faster than PPC970s for most tasks at a given clock speed (ignoring the relatively narrow set of applications that use Altivec and similar). If the PPC970 had on on-die memory controller it would most likely put it neck and neck with AMD64. I am guessing it is the primary reason that both our databases and supercomputing applications are faster on Opterons, all other things being equal.

tortoise
Nov 20, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
The PPC, unlike the AMD64, is much more scalable because IBM is behind it. We all know that "Big Blue" may be a hard pill to swallow, but in the end they can and will out perform AMD.

Have you actually compared the cores on a detailed level? The AMD core design is quite elegant, and actually looks less hacked together than the PPC970 core and is of a more general purpose design. The next major version of the Opteron is supposedly going to be a hyperthreaded multi-core design, and they have a lot of headroom for clockspeed, so PPC isn't going to pull ahead any time soon.

People forget how long AMD has been in the CPU design business (e.g. their popular 29k-series RISC processors). They are quite competent at designing efficient cores, which is evident in the relative performance of their ia32 compatible CPUs at a given clock speed, and the extremely high performance of their amd64 CPUs compared to anything else.

I don't want to sound like an AMD fanboy, but they are a very competent silicon design company that produces cutting edge products that are as well-engineered as anything else on the market. Remember, the excellent HyperTransport technology and chipsets that Apple and IBM use were not developed by either IBM or Intel, but principally by AMD and a couple other companies (including Apple). Now that their designs are not constrained by the necessity of Intel compatibility, expect them to move very fast with innovative and high performance designs, like AMD64 and HyperTransport. IBM will have to work hard to keep up with AMD, and AMD can't slack off like IBM can because AMDs core business IS selling high-end silicon, not systems (as evidenced by IBM selling AMD64 systems as well).

uberman42
Nov 20, 2003, 04:05 PM
...but i play one in this forum...Apple with IBM just kicks buttocks. I am so amazed at what IBM is doing with these chip designs. I cannot wait till rev B of the Powermacs. by the time it comes out i shall grab one from the store. And the powertune thing- sounds very promising indeed...good time to be alive. :)

eirik
Nov 20, 2003, 07:03 PM
I'm no EE but the following figures speak well of IBM:

______________die size_______transistors
______________[mm^2]_______[million]
PowerPC970____121__________52
Athlon64_______193__________105.9
Pentium4 EE____237__________178

Just a few power usage specs for the 970:
1.2GHz at 19W, 1.8GHz at 42W, 2GHz at 57W

I don't have any handy for the Athlong64 and P4EE. Would be nice, though.

Anyway, IBM seems to achieve quite a lot with fewer transistors and less die area.

Eirik

Wyrm
Nov 21, 2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
I hope they do this. It is the primary reason Opterons tend to be a bit faster than PPC970s for most tasks at a given clock speed (ignoring the relatively narrow set of applications that use Altivec and similar). If the PPC970 had on on-die memory controller it would most likely put it neck and neck with AMD64. I am guessing it is the primary reason that both our databases and supercomputing applications are faster on Opterons, all other things being equal.

Not only that, but Dual Opterons for example if in 4 + 4 memory configuration are dual channel to each bank - whereas with the G5 it is just dual channel from the memory to the controller. Putting a memory controller onchip could allow them to simplify the controller (just AGP), and almost double memory bandwidth to a local bank, since you don't have the other CPU getting in the way (a far memory access to the other CPU's bank may be slower, but the FSB is 1ghz, so it can shovel the bits quite fast).

I've heard that with IBM's Power design team the design is fairly high level construction, so they should be able to mix and match parts on chip easier than a full custom, hand-optimised design.

The good news is, if you think the current G5 is fast, you haven't seen anything yet. :D

-Wyrm

yamabushi
Nov 21, 2003, 04:58 AM
19W@1.2GHz G5? Is this real? Why do we still have the G4 if this is the case? The G5 could replace every G4 in the lineup at 1.2GHz and 1.4GHz.

manitoubalck
Nov 21, 2003, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Wyrm
allow them to simplify the controller (just AGP),

The north bridge has other tasks becides memory and AGP. Communicating with the south bridge, PCI bus and back pannel ports as well plus plenty of others.

But your point is still very strong and an on-chip memory controler would be a great advantage. So would RAMBUS but that's not going to happpen

jouster
Nov 21, 2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by sethypoo
But a 64 bit processor in a laptop?!? Please! Windows/intel have nothing on that, and won't for years.

Really? (http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/m855.aspx)