PDA

View Full Version : More 90nm PowerPC G5 Details?


MacRumors
Dec 5, 2003, 12:24 PM
Appleinsider claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=260) to have more details about the 90nm PowerPC 970.

The new chip is being referred to as the PowerPC 970FX - which is said to provide lower power consumption as well as previously referenced PowerTune (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031119182013.shtml) technology.

Appleinsider also resolves previous contradictory reports by reporting that the updated PowerMac subsystems (533 DDR II, 1.5GHz Bus) and the January 2004 PowerMac updates are to be one in the same. Previous reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031119182013.shtml) pointed to March 2004 for the subsystem upgrades, while pointing to speedbumped PowerMacs (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031112123844.shtml) in January.

Wonder Boy
Dec 5, 2003, 12:27 PM
thus sparks the debate: new computer or move out of my parents house...

ALoLA
Dec 5, 2003, 12:31 PM
Does low power consumption = G5 powerbook? :)

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
thus sparks the debate: new computer or move out of my parents house... Tell your parents you'll move out if they get you a PowerMac.. :D

Wonder Boy
Dec 5, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Tell your parents you'll move out if they get you a PowerMac.. :D

haha. actually they'd buy me the computer just so i would stay!

AmigoMac
Dec 5, 2003, 12:39 PM
I can see a G5 PB before X-mas 2004 ...
Hope to get my sweet dream soon.
Give the world a taste of power.

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
haha. actually they'd buy me the computer just so i would stay! there you go.. Then move out a month later... and say, oops, I lied. hehehehehehehehe

MacandCheese
Dec 5, 2003, 12:40 PM
2.6 Ghz of porn-crunching power is definitely something to wait for. Finally I will have the ability to render a 3D version of my camel so I can ride it while playing Halo!! hehehe

AmigoMac
Dec 5, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
haha. actually they'd buy me the computer just so i would stay!

If his parents get that great machine, this boy will move his parents out... wouldn't he need space for the 30" display?.:p ;)

gwuMACaddict
Dec 5, 2003, 12:43 PM
i would tend to think that the more information, the more reliable the rumor. where is macbuo-dlii-doudle-ee-doo when we need them? ;)

pgwalsh
Dec 5, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by MacandCheese
2.6 Ghz of porn-crunchin my camel so I can ride it while playing Halo!! hehehe That's disgusting.....

willmg
Dec 5, 2003, 12:53 PM
With a 1.25+GHz bus what ram would equate to full bus utilization? DDR 533 is 1066 efective speed right, so I guess with dual channel that gets around 2132MHz effective? So its fast enough but isnt DDR 533 really expensive and isn't most of it is still CAS 3 with high timings, which actually performs worse than slightly slower memory with faster latency? Anyone know anything about DDR2/3 availibilty by Febuary? I thought it was just recently that standards were even set for both of these formats for ram.

QCassidy352
Dec 5, 2003, 12:58 PM
I don't understand... I thought that the bus was intrinsically linked to the processor in the G5. How could there be a bus increase to 1.5 Ghz unless the processor hit 3 ghz?

dho
Dec 5, 2003, 01:02 PM
very cool

visor
Dec 5, 2003, 01:02 PM
I'd sure like to see the 90nm's
It a) allows for higher frequency, and
b) uses less power at lower frequencies.
Now, the current G5 is obviously too hot for the PB's but a 1.3 GHz 90nmG5 would probably make a good mobile processor.
It'll be interesting to trace.

dongmin
Dec 5, 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
I don't understand... I thought that the bus was intrinsically linked to the processor in the G5. How could there be a bus increase to 1.5 Ghz unless the processor hit 3 ghz? well if you had actually bothered to read the appleinsider report, it says up to 1.5 ghz. So not necessarily 3.0 ghz now but it can support it if need be. What I'm curious about is whether Apple will be able to get to 3.0 ghz with the 970fx or will they need to bring out the 980. My bet is for the former.

the_mole1314
Dec 5, 2003, 01:29 PM
I bet the PPC will get to 4ghz before the P4, AMD, or an X86 chip will (for the consumer market)!

illumin8
Dec 5, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by ALoLA
Does low power consumption = G5 powerbook? :)
I think we can safely put that rumor to rest for the next 6 months or so at least. If you read the article, you'll find this little nugget:
Appleinsider excerpt
Although the PowerPC 970FX makes great strides in the realm of power consumption, it is still hungry compared to the rest of the PowerPC family, one source said. At the lowest -- albeit unknown -- clock-speed, the PowerPC 970FX dissipates approximately 12-Watts. Preliminary tests conducted earlier in the year on a 2.5GHz PowerPC 970FX G5, built around the 90nm process, showed the processor to dissipate 62-Watts. For comparison, a chip of equal clock frequency, which was manufactured on IBM's current 130nm process, dissipated a considerable 96 watts.
Looking at the power consumption, 12 watts at idle, and 62-watts running at 2.5 ghz., this chip is more efficient, but still a monster. The 130nm chips are pulling about the same power as a Pentium IV desktop chip is, so that explains why they didn't want to stuff it into a PowerBook.

I think Apple will wait until they can get a chip that only uses 10-20 watts of power before they put it in a PowerBook. The only other option is to clock it down to a slower speed like 1 ghz. where it would theoretically still pull a respectable 30-40 watts and you'd be stuck with a machine that's about the same speed as the current G4 PowerBooks, but a hell of a lot thicker, heavier, and only 2 hours of battery life.

leet1
Dec 5, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by the_mole1314
I bet the PPC will get to 4ghz before the P4, AMD, or an X86 chip will (for the consumer market)!

lol, how much you want to bet? :D

greenstork
Dec 5, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by the_mole1314
I bet the PPC will get to 4ghz before the P4, AMD, or an X86 chip will (for the consumer market)!

I'm afriad you'll probably lose that bet. Intel would only have to push their processors .8 GHz to reach 4Ghz while Apple would have to jump 2 GHz and at the current rate of speed bumps, could be expected no earlier than late 2005.

I do think that IBM will surpass Intel in real world computer speed with the Dual 3.0 GHz machine. The Opteron however, and future AMD products, might not be so easy to topple.

daveL
Dec 5, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
I think we can safely put that rumor to rest for the next 6 months or so at least. If you read the article, you'll find this little nugget:

Looking at the power consumption, 12 watts at idle, and 62-watts running at 2.5 ghz., this chip is more efficient, but still a monster. The 130nm chips are pulling about the same power as a Pentium IV desktop chip is, so that explains why they didn't want to stuff it into a PowerBook.

I think Apple will wait until they can get a chip that only uses 10-20 watts of power before they put it in a PowerBook. The only other option is to clock it down to a slower speed like 1 ghz. where it would theoretically still pull a respectable 30-40 watts and you'd be stuck with a machine that's about the same speed as the current G4 PowerBooks, but a hell of a lot thicker, heavier, and only 2 hours of battery life.
It says nothing about 12 watts at idle. It says 12 watts at some unknown lower frequency. And the 62 watt number came from an earlier prototype, not the current production process.

illumin8
Dec 5, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by willmg
So its fast enough but isnt DDR 533 really expensive and isn't most of it is still CAS 3 with high timings, which actually performs worse than slightly slower memory with faster latency?
CAS 3 just gives you slightly higher latency. One thing you should be aware of is that unless you buy an OEM Intel 875P motherboard and build your own system, you won't be able to take advantage of CAS 2 or 2.5 memory. Every system manufacturer that has implemented dual channel DDR400 memory so far has locked the memory controller at CAS 3 just to ensure compatibility with all 3rd party memory.

I know this because I have a Dell Dimension 8300 (Intel 875P chipset) and it performs exactly the same in Sandra's memory benchmarks no matter what memory I put in it.

As far as the G5 goes, I know this because on barefeats, he benchmarked both CAS 2 and CAS 3 memory and got the exact same results.

I did have a question that maybe someone could answer though: Is DDR-2 533 the same as PC4200 memory? PC4200 memory (533 mhz.) is available in a 1GB kit (2x 512MB sticks) for only $168 according to Pricewatch. That's not too much more than PC3200, which is $124 for a 1GB kit.

greenstork
Dec 5, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by daveL
It says nothing about 12 watts at idle. It says 12 watts at some unknown lower frequency. And the 62 watt number came from an earlier prototype, not the current production process.

Actually the article says that 12 W is at the lowest possible clock speed on the chip. He is extrapolating that this is at idle for a scalable chip speed, and correctly so.

illumin8
Dec 5, 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by daveL
It says nothing about 12 watts at idle. It says 12 watts at some unknown lower frequency. And the 62 watt number came from an earlier prototype, not the current production process.
Ok, but do you agree that the chances of seeing a G5 PowerBook in January are pretty slim, based on the numbers you've seen? My guess would be G5 PowerBook (rev. A) first seen next September/October at the earliest. Most likely in 1 year from January.

mdntcallr
Dec 5, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by illumin8


I think Apple will wait until they can get a chip that only uses 10-20 watts of power before they put it in a PowerBook. The only other option is to clock it down to a slower speed like 1 ghz. where it would theoretically still pull a respectable 30-40 watts and you'd be stuck with a machine that's about the same speed as the current G4 PowerBooks, but a hell of a lot thicker, heavier, and only 2 hours of battery life.


All i care about is getting a G5 powerbook with a fast processor when it is plugged in.

Then when it is on batteries, it can be slowed down. that makes sense.

daveL
Dec 5, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
Actually the article says that 12 W is at the lowest possible clock speed on the chip. He is extrapolating that this is at idle for a scalable chip speed, and correctly so.
I disagree with the extrapolation. Just my opinion.

daveL
Dec 5, 2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Ok, but do you agree that the chances of seeing a G5 PowerBook in January are pretty slim, based on the numbers you've seen? My guess would be G5 PowerBook (rev. A) first seen next September/October at the earliest. Most likely in 1 year from January.
Sure, I don't expect a G5 PB in January. I agree it may be the latter part of 04 before they appear. The only thing that might accelerate that timeframe would be some new cooling technology, but then you still have the battery life issue.

murak
Dec 5, 2003, 02:07 PM
"-Oboy! Wet dream again, a 12" PB with a 1.6 ghz G5, aw man that would be so damn sweet... Its never to soon for a PB rumor."
Im such a geek =)

x86isslow
Dec 5, 2003, 02:14 PM
we're likely to see a revision B of the current powerbooks in January: most likely with faster rpm harddrives, and hopefully none of the screen and 'gap/maw' of the lid issues that this A-round saw.
hopefully apple will keep rev A of a g5 powerbook internal, seeing the nuisance of 10.2.8, panther, and the revA alu pwrbks.
i look forward to a second gen g5 powerbook
i'm betting that said powerbooks will hit the market when i have the $$ to afford them- about a year and a half from now sounds about right. (wwdc 05)

sharky2313
Dec 5, 2003, 02:27 PM
these new speeds make the Moto g4 look really really slow. Apple has to feel the need to get the powerbooks jump started.

I understand that people like the current batch of books but the disparity between the powermacs and the books looks really bad to me.

Tim Flynn
Dec 5, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I disagree with the extrapolation. Just my opinion.

I agree with daveL.
The first mention is 96 watts for a 970 130nm at 2.6 Ghz. This not idle, that is flatout (The definition of flatout is ..., but very little agreement on that :D )
The 68 watts at 2.6Ghz on 90nm is reasonable for a processor running flatout. The 970 (130nm) runs I believe 46 watts at 2.0 Ghz.
So 12 watts at 1.2Ghz for a 970FX (90nm), is again flatout. The 970FX, I think will make it into a laptop.

I have 1.8 G5, which run maybe 30-40 watts flatout, not at idle.

jettredmont
Dec 5, 2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by QCassidy352
I don't understand... I thought that the bus was intrinsically linked to the processor in the G5. How could there be a bus increase to 1.5 Ghz unless the processor hit 3 ghz?

You are correct: the CPU:FSB ratio on the G5 is set to one of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, or a few higher multiples. You can't have a 2.6GHz G5 running on a 1.5GHz FSB.

HOWEVER, The new system controllers are purported to be stable at *UP TO* 1.5GHz. Which is to say, they won't need to be replaced (and thus the CPU:FSB multiplier won't need to be changed) until the G5 goes abot 3.0GHz.

Of course, on a 2.6GHz G5 they will run at 1.3GHz (or 866MHz , or 650MHz ...)

k2k koos
Dec 5, 2003, 02:39 PM
Seems to get real interesting guys...

jettredmont
Dec 5, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
I'm afriad you'll probably lose that bet. Intel would only have to push their processors .8 GHz to reach 4Ghz while Apple would have to jump 2 GHz and at the current rate of speed bumps, could be expected no earlier than late 2005.


Umm, actually, the "current rate" of speed bumps on IBM is 50% raw clock rate in one year. In mid-2005, one would expect IBM to be at 4.5GHz from a straight linear extrapolation, which would put 4GHz around February/March of 2005.

That's hardly "late 2005". Of course, it's relying on the always-faulty linear extrapolation, which can hardly be called an accurate predictor, but that's what you specified in your original comment.

"Late 2004", however, Intel claims to want a 4GHz CPU in production, so based on public claims Intel should hit 4GHz well before IBM.

As you said, however, it has yet to be seen what the real-world performance of those beasties will be. Suffice to say that, right now, IBM has an as-fast-or-faster overall chip than Intel, and that, right now, IBM's chip is advancing at a significantly faster rate than Intel's.

As you and others have said, I think the real speed crown competition for the next period of time is AMD, not Intel. Intel can't be ignored, as its marketing and warchest would let it survive even an obvious performance whipping from AMD/IBM, but I think that for the first time in many years we can honestly say Intel's performance is worse than an Apple machine's.

jettredmont
Dec 5, 2003, 02:48 PM
These sound like some real heart-stopping (especially within certain executive offices) advances for the G5 line. Let's hope they come to be!

For myself, I'm ready to go home and enjoy the last month of Total World Supremacy with my 1/1100th of a supercomputer ...

greenstork
Dec 5, 2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Umm, actually, the "current rate" of speed bumps on IBM is 50% raw clock rate in one year. In mid-2005, one would expect IBM to be at 4.5GHz from a straight linear extrapolation, which would put 4GHz around February/March of 2005.

That's hardly "late 2005". Of course, it's relying on the always-faulty linear extrapolation, which can hardly be called an accurate predictor, but that's what you specified in your original comment.



I hate to be picky because you were right to correct me but a 50% year over year increase is not linear, it's parabolic. Plot some hypothetical numbers on a graph and you would see the same thing.

I was thinking of it in terms of a linear progression which is 1 GHz per year making it mid to late 2005 until IBM reaches 4 GHz. As you pointed out, linear progressions are wrought with inaccuracy.

While I'll probably eat my words and be proven wrong by Moore's Law, I would venture to guess that IBM chip speed will continue to increase at 1 GHz a year for a while and not at the 50% a year clip. That said, I stand by my original statement that IBM won't be cranking out a 4 GHz chip until mid to late 2005. Sure, it's just speculation, call it a hunch.

jouster
Dec 5, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Umm, actually, the "current rate" of speed bumps on IBM is 50% raw clock rate in one year.

Unfortunately not. There is no current rate because there have not been any speed bumps yet.

The "hoped for and promised by Jobs rate" is 50% in one year but heh, plenty can happen in either direction that we know nothing about.

Remember, 400--->500--->450?

jettredmont
Dec 5, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by illumin8

I did have a question that maybe someone could answer though: Is DDR-2 533 the same as PC4200 memory? PC4200 memory (533 mhz.) is available in a 1GB kit (2x 512MB sticks) for only $168 according to Pricewatch. That's not too much more than PC3200, which is $124 for a 1GB kit.

Yes, PC4200 and DDR-533 are one and the same.

I'm not sure I'd ust the memory at the prices you quoted, though; Macs have a history of being quite fussy with memory quality, G5s as well. I wouldn't use the $62/card 512MB PC3200 memory in my machine (I'd rather pay an extra $30/card and know that I'm not going to end up with system instabilities and such) unless it, for some reason, came from a really reputable manufacturer with a good warrantee (and a good PR policy on accepting bad memory returns instead of blaming it on everybody else and their dog).

I'm just generally suspicious of memory coming at a 33% discount from what the top brands are selling ...

legion
Dec 5, 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
CAS 3 just gives you slightly higher latency. One thing you should be aware of is that unless you buy an OEM Intel 875P motherboard and build your own system, you won't be able to take advantage of CAS 2 or 2.5 memory. Every system manufacturer that has implemented dual channel DDR400 memory so far has locked the memory controller at CAS 3 just to ensure compatibility with all 3rd party memory.

I know this because I have a Dell Dimension 8300 (Intel 875P chipset) and it performs exactly the same in Sandra's memory benchmarks no matter what memory I put in it.

As far as the G5 goes, I know this because on barefeats, he benchmarked both CAS 2 and CAS 3 memory and got the exact same results.

I did have a question that maybe someone could answer though: Is DDR-2 533 the same as PC4200 memory? PC4200 memory (533 mhz.) is available in a 1GB kit (2x 512MB sticks) for only $168 according to Pricewatch. That's not too much more than PC3200, which is $124 for a 1GB kit.

Not true. IBM gives you 2.5CL default and now 2.0CL is available from the bios (and it works!)

Mav451
Dec 5, 2003, 04:02 PM
interesting...but wuz bout say the p4800? or the IC7? do those also lock it at cl3?

I remember b/c the early 875 chipsets had major dual channel problems--the slots being extremely picky of the ram that was inserted.

Freg3000
Dec 5, 2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by jouster


Remember, 400--->500--->450?

Don't remind me.

JoeRadar
Dec 5, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Ok, but do you agree that the chances of seeing a G5 PowerBook in January are pretty slim, based on the numbers you've seen? My guess would be G5 PowerBook (rev. A) first seen next September/October at the earliest.
This seems reasonable. Apple will probably consume most of the available 970FX (or whatever will be the name) for the PowerMac line -- the line for which performance is critical. Next will probably come the xServes. Finally, the PowerBooks will bring up the 3rd spot.

Next fall should be another heady time in the rumor market -- PowerMacs based on the 980 running at 3GHz, PowerBooks on the 970 running around 2GHz, maybe even the next major OS release (although I could use a break on the major OS release rates).

dongmin
Dec 5, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I disagree with the extrapolation. Just my opinion. guys guys calm down. the rumors are so vague right now that you can really extrapolate just about anything regarding G5 powerbooks.

until these rumors come flat out and say that the 970fx at such-and-such clockspeed will make it into the next revision of PowerBooks, it's too far away to make 'educated' guesses. But for reference:

early estimates by IBM:
42W @ 1.8 ghz, 1.3v, 130nm
19W @ 1.2 ghz, 1.1v, 130nm
(I read somewhere that these estimates are lower than actual results)

Appleinsider source:
96W @ 2.5 ghz, 1.5v???, 130nm
62W @ 2.5 ghz, ??? voltage, 90nm (35% reduction in power)
12W @ ??? ghz, ??? voltage, 90nm

Extrapolation (based on the logic that going to 90nm saves about 30%-35% in power)

12W @ 1.2 ghz, 90nm
27W @ 1.8 ghz, 90nm

I generally consider these numbers to be best-case scenarios. My guess is that a 1.8ghz G5, even at 90nm, is too hot for a laptop. 1.6ghz might be possible. But then you have to ask yourself, where is Apple gonna go after this? Will the 980 bring even better performance-to-power ratios? Is Apple and IBM working on a separate mobile 9xx chip for the laptops (like it was discussed regarding IBM's involvement in game consoles)? Or will we have to wait for 65nm process to come on line?

ITR 81
Dec 5, 2003, 05:06 PM
Today I was called by AppleCare rep because my PB is about to end it's 1 yr warranty in about another week and he asked if I like to get AppleCare. When I told him not really because I've had no problems with it and I plan on getting a new G5 PB when they come out next yr he said "yeah alot people here have been talking about the new G5 Mac processors." When I asked you mean faster speeds? He was like oh um nah I was talking about the current G5.

I think my AppleCare rep has heard a few things from inside of Apple and kinda of let it slip out new processors were coming for the G5 in Jan.

He did tell me MacWorld is going to be huge and I should go and get passes now.

To me this pretty much says the G5 is getting speed bumps in Jan.

I did however found it nice Apple calls you to see if you like to extend your warranty..never had that happen while owning any PC.

Daschund
Dec 5, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
haha. actually they'd buy me the computer just so i would stay!

Damn! Than you don't even have to think about it! Just choose the damn model you want!! LOL

Daschund

johnnowak
Dec 5, 2003, 05:10 PM
Will these chips offer hyperthreading or not?

visor
Dec 5, 2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Tim Flynn
I agree with daveL.
The first mention is 96 watts for a 970 130nm at 2.6 Ghz. This not idle, that is flatout (The definition of flatout is ..., but very little agreement on that :D )
The 68 watts at 2.6Ghz on 90nm is reasonable for a processor running flatout. The 970 (130nm) runs I believe 46 watts at 2.0 Ghz.
So 12 watts at 1.2Ghz for a 970FX (90nm), is again flatout. The 970FX, I think will make it into a laptop.

I have 1.8 G5, which run maybe 30-40 watts flatout, not at idle.
I've measured my Ibooks power consumption.
Idle: 8-10 watt, normal use 14-20 watt, full blazing and charging: 40 watt.

daveL
Dec 5, 2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by johnnowak
Will these chips offer hyperthreading or not?
No, not till the 980 comes out later next year.

Sun Baked
Dec 5, 2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by willmg
With a 1.25+GHz bus what ram would equate to full bus utilization? DDR 533 is 1066 efective speed right, so I guess with dual channel that gets around 2132MHz effective? So its fast enough but isnt DDR 533 really expensive and isn't most of it is still CAS 3 with high timings, which actually performs worse than slightly slower memory with faster latency? Anyone know anything about DDR2/3 availibilty by Febuary? I thought it was just recently that standards were even set for both of these formats for ram. If this is close to http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/print.php/1562021

Still haven't found a decent article on the current JEDEC DDR-II standard, but I haven't been looking hard either.

nek
Dec 5, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by dongmin
12W @ 1.2 ghz, 90nm
27W @ 1.8 ghz, 90nm

I generally consider these numbers to be best-case scenarios. My guess is that a 1.8ghz G5, even at 90nm, is too hot for a laptop. 1.6ghz might be possible. But then you have to ask yourself, where is Apple gonna go after this?

Perhaps if the new 970FX and 980 make use of "PowerTune" to allow the PowerBook to run at a slower frequency and power, then 1.8GHz would be OK. They would be able to use less of the battery and run cooler when not plugged in.

But like you said, where do they go from there? I guess the PowerBooks don't get updated very often anyway, just putting a G5 in there at any GHz would be a good start. Then they can increase the speed when cooler processors become available.

marktomac
Dec 5, 2003, 06:34 PM
Greetings,

I am so excited to be getting a G5 but all this talk about new systems makes think that I should wait till end of january!

However, it stinks because I finially made the commitment to go BiG.

However, I do not really think I need the power? What do you all use the power for? I am wondering about price drop as well not watching the apple market till a few weeks ago...

Go BigMacs, Bad PCs ....

Thanks Everyone....

Mark:eek:

manu chao
Dec 5, 2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
I hate to be picky because you were right to correct me but a 50% year over year increase is not linear, it's parabolic. Plot some hypothetical numbers on a graph and you would see the same thing.

I was thinking of it in terms of a linear progression which is 1 GHz per year making it mid to late 2005 until IBM reaches 4 GHz. As you pointed out, linear progressions are wrought with inaccuracy.

Actually, jettredmont was right to talk about a linear extrapolation, he just omitted to say that he plotted the frequency on a log scale, which is the only one making sense here. :D

Seriously, it does not make any sense to compare cpu frequencies in absolute terms. You have to look at relative increases.

Rincewind42
Dec 5, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
I hate to be picky because you were right to correct me but a 50% year over year increase is not linear, it's parabolic.

...

While I'll probably eat my words and be proven wrong by Moore's Law, I would venture to guess that IBM chip speed will continue to increase at 1 GHz a year for a while and not at the 50% a year clip.

Actually, Moore's Law (which relates to transistor density (iirc) and has been perverted to all things CPU) specifies about a 59% year over year increase (2x/1.5 years == 1.59x/year). So if IBM manages only 50% per year they are behind the curve :D .

Of course, Intel is only planning on going up 800 Mhz in over a years time, so they are REALLY behind :cool: .

ktlx
Dec 5, 2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Actually, Moore's Law (which relates to transistor density (iirc) and has been perverted to all things CPU) specifies about a 59% year over year increase (2x/1.5 years == 1.59x/year).

Actually Moore's Law only talks about the number of transistors in an integrated circuit. It does not relate to density or speed other than the same forces allowing Moore's Law to remain in effect also tend to increase the density and speed.

Here is a good URL: http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm

elvisizer
Dec 5, 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by jouster
The "hoped for and promised by Jobs rate" is 50% in one year but heh, plenty can happen in either direction that we know nothing about.

Remember, 400--->500--->450?
that was a completely different company supplying those chips, remember?
ibm is not motorola.
the g5 is not the g4.
cheer the heck up already.
:D

elvisizer
Dec 5, 2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
I did have a question that maybe someone could answer though: Is DDR-2 533 the same as PC4200 memory? PC4200 memory (533 mhz.) is available in a 1GB kit (2x 512MB sticks) for only $168 according to Pricewatch. That's not too much more than PC3200, which is $124 for a 1GB kit.

ddr-2 ram is different from plain ddr.
i haven't been shopping for RAM lately, but last time i looked, i only found plain ddr ram. the only place i've heard of ddr2 being used so far in a shipping product is in graphics cards, like the original geforce fx . . . .
also, CAS3 to CAS2 does make a small difference in memory performance, as long as your memory controller will actually switch to CAS2. if it won't, cas2 ram will happily run at cas3, which is what's happening to the guy with the Dell who said it gets the sam sandra score no matter the ram he uses.
i'm not sure about apple's memory controllers, but from bare feats' tests, it looks like it doesn't make a difference on mac's right now. I do know that the motherboard detects what the ram is rated for, since it's listed in apple system reporter . . . .

Telomar
Dec 5, 2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by ktlx
Actually Moore's Law only talks about the number of transistors in an integrated circuit. It does not relate to density or speed other than the same forces allowing Moore's Law to remain in effect also tend to increase the density and speed.

Here is a good URL: http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm If you actually read Moore's paper it is simply an observation that fabrication technology advances at a rate such that fabrication techniques improve roughly every 12 months, which was then revised. It talks about transistor densities for a given integrated circuit size and not specifically transistor count. It's really just a paper making an observation about the economics of integrated circuit manufacture and the size of fabrication processes.

Nemesis
Dec 5, 2003, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by JoeRadar
This seems reasonable. Apple will probably consume most of the available 970FX (or whatever will be the name) for the PowerMac line -- the line for which performance is critical. Next will probably come the xServes. Finally, the PowerBooks will bring up the 3rd spot.


This sounds logical, but it's not good for Apple. Apple has biggest margins in laptops, and will do everything to put that G5 beast in their PowerBooks asap.

And not only that, now is a historic chance for Apple, to integrate G5 in ALL their systems and products, and claim "64bit computing for everyone".

That would be awesome!
But, at least, I would do that If I were SJ.

leet1
Dec 6, 2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Nemesis
And not only that, now is a historic chance for Apple, to integrate G5 in ALL their systems and products, and claim "64bit computing for everyone".

Why would they claim that? You can already get 64bit in laptops/desktops.

ralphh
Dec 6, 2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by leet1
Why would they claim that? You can already get 64bit in laptops/desktops.

And pay how much for it?

It's not "for everyone" if the laptop's $6000+. :o

leet1
Dec 6, 2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by ralphh
And pay how much for it?

It's not "for everyone" if the laptop's $6000+. :o

http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/m855.aspx

not $6000....$3,000

Sunrunner
Dec 6, 2003, 05:22 AM
Is it just me or does it seem like the IBM chip development pipeline is lighyears ahead of Motorola when it comes to speed of development and manufacture, (not to mention chip technology). Moto almost killed the Mac, it just wasn't a priority for them. IBM, on the other hand, is set to make Macs the fastest thing on a desktop once again.;)

ktlx
Dec 6, 2003, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by Telomar
If you actually read Moore's paper it is simply an observation that fabrication technology advances at a rate such that fabrication techniques improve roughly every 12 months, which was then revised. It talks about transistor densities for a given integrated circuit size and not specifically transistor count. It's really just a paper making an observation about the economics of integrated circuit manufacture and the size of fabrication processes.

Could you point out where it talks about densities in terms of paragraph and page number of the paper? I read it and did not interpret it to mean densities at all. I only found one place where he spoke about the physical size of a chip. None of his graphs or charts talk about transistor density, either, unless I am misinterpreting them.

Even in interviews that I have read with Moore, he has said that the law meant nothing more than an observation that the number of transitors in an IC is doubling.

whooleytoo
Dec 8, 2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
I think my AppleCare rep has heard a few things from inside of Apple and kinda of let it slip out new processors were coming for the G5 in Jan.


I'm afraid if you want someone to spill some insider info, then tech support & sales people are the last ones you should talk to. People who talk for a living generally don't get trusted with confidential company info! :D


He did tell me MacWorld is going to be huge and I should go and get passes now.

Since it's the 20th anniversary of the Mac, it should be no surprise Macworld is going to be big, in fact it's surprising there haven't been even more rumours floating about it!

manitoubalck
Dec 9, 2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Amdfan
[B]Funny I didn't know that apple shiped ther computers with beta operating systems.B]
Didn't the very first G4's come with a beta version of OS-X?