PDA

View Full Version : IBM's 90nm PowerPC 970FX


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jan 21, 2004, 07:26 PM
IBM has posted the first official information of the PowerPC 970FX (90nm PowerPC) in this PDF entitled "IBM PowerPC Quick Reference Guide" (http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/7874C7DA8607C0B287256BF3006FBE54/$file/PPC_QRG_01-21-04.pdf).

According to the document (page 10), the PowerPC 970FX is the 90nm version of the PowerPC 970. A comparison chart reveals that the 970FX consumes 24.5W at 2.0GHz while the original 970 consumes 51W at 1.8GHz. The 970FX speeds are only listed as 1.4-2.0+ GHz, however, revealing no information as to the top speed of the chip, though the Bus reaches 1.1GHz (vs 1.0GHz of the PowerPC 970).

The 90nm PowerPC is widely expected to power the next PowerMac revisions, and are currently being used the recently revised Xserve G5s. The 970FX was first referenced in this rumor report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/12/20031205132410.shtml) but few other processor details accompanied that report.

jderman
Jan 21, 2004, 07:30 PM
Clock it at 1.6 or 1.8 and throw it in the 17inch PB ASAP. My $$$ is waiting.

JohnGillilan
Jan 21, 2004, 07:31 PM
¡Oh Super Sí!

Bob Knob
Jan 21, 2004, 07:35 PM
For a reality check, how much does the chip in the current G4 PowerBook use?

RalphNumbers
Jan 21, 2004, 07:37 PM
1.1Ghz bus implies 2.2Ghz CPU clock

lets hope that isn't the upper limit for this revision.

jderman
Jan 21, 2004, 07:44 PM
10 W @ 1 Ghz is the current g4's power consumption. Clock that fx puppy down to 1.8 or 1.6 and your at about 16/18 watts. Beef up the battery in the current unit and wallah, you have a laptop with about a 2hr battery life that will make the g4pb look like a joke (performance wise). What do those 3ghz p4 laptops consume anyway?

Sun Baked
Jan 21, 2004, 07:45 PM
Just have to say thanks to M.Isobe for pointing the document out.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jan 21, 2004, 07:46 PM
Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading that the G4 in the current powerbooks consumes 10W.. I'm sure Arn can give the actualy numbers.

Of this I'm sure, the 24.5W while impressive as all get out, is probably at least double the current PB.. So maybe not at that speed, BUT even if you put a 1.2GHz G5 in the PB you'd have a 600MHz bus anf the option to get some serious RAM in the box.. that alone would make the current PB's seem like calculators..


Originally posted by Bob Knob
For a reality check, how much does the chip in the current G4 PowerBook use?

noverflow
Jan 21, 2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Bob Knob
For a reality check, how much does the chip in the current G4 PowerBook use?

here you go

Samurai980
Jan 21, 2004, 07:49 PM
Well it is nice to see IBM try to improve things, but why still such a low amount of L1, L2, and L3 cache?

The Pentium 4 was soundily defeated by the AMD 64 FX-51 (L1:128k,L2:1MB) and then Intel released the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition which is just a P4 with L1: 8k, L2: 512K, and a L3: 2MB and then it soundily defeated the AMD 64.

Now the PowerPC 970 has a measily 32K L1 and a tiny 512K L2. Why doesn't IBM/Apple upgrade this tiny thing? I mean there would be a significant speed and performance boost as a result.

Another interesting difference is the transistor count of the three processors. P4EE is 178m, AMD64 is 106m, and Apple is 58m.

Aside from that, Apple needs to put out a true 64-bit OS.

Mr Maui
Jan 21, 2004, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by jderman
10 W @ 1 Ghz is the current g4's power consumption. Clock that fx puppy down to 1.8 or 1.6 and your at about 16/18 watts. Beef up the battery in the current unit and wallah, you have a laptop with about a 2hr battery life that will make the g4pb look like a joke (performance wise). What do those 3ghz p4 laptops consume anyway?


I was just wondering about the power consumption ... thanks. But, I can honestly say that as a traveling professional two hour battery life will never cut the mustard. It burns 12.5 watts at 1.4 Ghz, plus with chip enhancements of the G4 should in itself blow out the present G4s, and have decent battery life. That's my two cents ... <but still have a pocket full of change ... LOL> :rolleyes:

MoparShaha
Jan 21, 2004, 07:50 PM
PowerBook G5 for the 20th Anniversary?

Well, someone had to say it. ;)

Mr Maui
Jan 21, 2004, 07:56 PM
What is the wattage consumption of the current 1.3 GHz?

Spec sheet for the 970 FX says it consumes 12.3w at 1.4 GHz and 24.5w at 2.0 GHz.

<change pocket is draining slightly>

Frobozz
Jan 21, 2004, 08:01 PM
The first thing I noticed was how relatively little wattacge is consumed by these chips. In turn, I immediately think of G5 Laptops.

Personally, I'd rather take a dual 2.6 Ghz G5 Desktop than a 1.6 Ghz - 1.8 Ghz laptop because of the type of daily tasks I go through. But a laptop sure would be nice, and I'm not looking to replace a desktop with it.

Booga
Jan 21, 2004, 08:02 PM
If you compare the performance numbers, the 970FX is a bit slower per MHz for SPEC numbers than the original 970. Although this is usually the case as the processors get faster clocks, it's kind of unfortunate to see.

It lists a 1.8GHz 970 as 828 SPECint2K and 1036 SPECfp2K. The 970FX at 2.0GHz (which is 1.11x faster in clock) gets 890 (1.07x) and 1100 (1.06x). It makes me wonder how it will scale into the 2.4+ GHz range.

On the other hand, cutting the power consumption in half is pretty sweet. 25W is very respectable at 2GHz! Plus, it is rated to operate hotter than boiling water :)

Sabbath
Jan 21, 2004, 08:02 PM
12.3 watts that must be do able surely. But then again isnt that just the processor? I dont know how much heat the buses would pump out at the necessary higher clock speeds?

Mr Maui
Jan 21, 2004, 08:07 PM
Just found a spec sheet for the 7455 at 1GHz and it says the typical consumption is 15w. Does that seem right?

Seems pretty high if the 1.4GHz G5 is only requiring 12.3w.

Any thoughts?

me_17213
Jan 21, 2004, 08:11 PM
the MIPS on te older 970 is alot higher than the FX version, I'm wondering wh the diffference would be so much.

970 1.8 7584 MIPS

970FX 2.0 5800 MIPS

Anybody care to fill me in?

csubear
Jan 21, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Samurai980
Well it is nice to see IBM try to improve things, but why still such a low amount of L1, L2, and L3 cache?

The Pentium 4 was soundily defeated by the AMD 64 FX-51 (L1:128k,L2:1MB) and then Intel released the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition which is just a P4 with L1: 8k, L2: 512K, and a L3: 2MB and then it soundily defeated the AMD 64.

Now the PowerPC 970 has a measily 32K L1 and a tiny 512K L2. Why doesn't IBM/Apple upgrade this tiny thing? I mean there would be a significant speed and performance boost as a result.



Umm... 512K L2 cache tiny? 32K L1 tiny! i don't think so. yes L3 cache is nice, L2 is imporant.. but L1 is the most imporant. That is where the cpu is directly getting data. Now from what you said the ppc970 has 4 times as much L1 cache then the P4. What does that mean. Less cache misses, less main memory access, and less stalled pipelines.

jderman
Jan 21, 2004, 09:19 PM
Whats really important here is that now we know for sure that a g5 pb *can* be produced and that it would be a practical machine (It woulden't be by any measure with the 970)


oops almost forgot speed bumps for the desktops. BringemonAPPL.

wizard
Jan 21, 2004, 09:21 PM
They willprobally go with a 3x multiplier. That would put us at 3.3 GHz.

On the other hand they could have some info embargoed.

What is most interesting is the 1.4 GHz wattage, I wonder if that is average or max. Further I do hope that they have done some work on the system controller as we are talking almost 30 watts there. A 64 bit laptop would be neat but I do hope that a 970 is worthwhile at these speeds.

Dave

Originally posted by RalphNumbers
1.1Ghz bus implies 2.2Ghz CPU clock

lets hope that isn't the upper limit for this revision.

nighthawk
Jan 21, 2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by csubear
Umm... 512K L2 cache tiny? 32K L1 tiny! i don't think so. yes L3 cache is nice, L2 is imporant.. but L1 is the most imporant. That is where the cpu is directly getting data. Now from what you said the ppc970 has 4 times as much L1 cache then the P4. What does that mean. Less cache misses, less main memory access, and less stalled pipelines.

I am not disputing anything you say, but I just wanted to add something in the mix here...

The Pentium is only a 32-bit chip, so when the 970 is running in full 64-bit mode, it only has the equivelent of twice the cache. I agree that the L1 cache size could be improved.

Also, the data cache is only 32kb, the instruction cache uses a separate 64kb. The spec sheet for the P4 Extreme does not list a separate amount for instruction cache. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses of the x86 architecture -- it does not include a separate cache for instruction data. (Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the source of the data buffer overrun error that plagues PCs?)

In addition, the P4 Extreme's L3 cache is running at 800mhz or 1/4 the speed of the processor. I could not locate the speed of the L1 and L2 for the P4e, but IBM explicitly states that both the L1 and L2 cache runs at the full processor speed. The data-sheet for the P4e does describe the two ALU (integer calcs) as running at "twice the core clock" which is 1600mhz for the P4e. This is also unlike the 970xx which runs at the full clock speed.

If Apple can release a Dual 2.6ghz in a few weeks, then Mac users can truely brag about the fastest personal computer.

Details on P4 Extreme are from here:
http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium4HTXE/

appleface
Jan 21, 2004, 09:25 PM
how long until the 65nm processors make it to production? will they make it in a pb by 2005?

wizard
Jan 21, 2004, 09:31 PM
Don't underestimate the importantce of cache. Not only can you increase performance but you can cut averge power usage.

A larger cache could be very important if this chip ends up in a portable as they are very likely to cut e-bus speed to save power. Slow your interface bus down and we will all be wishing for more cache.

Dave



Originally posted by csubear
Umm... 512K L2 cache tiny? 32K L1 tiny! i don't think so. yes L3 cache is nice, L2 is imporant.. but L1 is the most imporant. That is where the cpu is directly getting data. Now from what you said the ppc970 has 4 times as much L1 cache then the P4. What does that mean. Less cache misses, less main memory access, and less stalled pipelines.

jj2003
Jan 21, 2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by me_17213

970 1.8 7584 MIPS
970FX 2.0 5800 MIPS

Anybody care to fill me in?

I know nothing, but I would take that as a typo. A linear scaling from 1.8 to 2.0 gives us almost 8500, true that the spec numbers do not scale linearily, but that looks quite weird.

nighthawk
Jan 21, 2004, 09:41 PM
Oh, one more thing...

The Pentium 4 Extreme has a 2mb L3 cache running at 800mhz.

The 970 has a 800mhz to 1Ghz external bus speed. Compare this to the P4 800mhz internal bus speed (which really runs at 200mhz with a 4x multiplier). This means that the P4 only has a 200mhz to play with to access memory, which can only be double pumped to 400mhz.

Current memory in the Dual 2.0Ghz G5 runs at the equivilent of 400mhz. However, because the 1.8Ghz and higher models have dual channel memory, this can be the equivilent to 800mhz total memory bandwidth.

Of course, this means that the 970 has a L3 cache up to 8GB running at the "same" speed as the P4 Extreme 2MB cache.

jj2003
Jan 21, 2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by jderman
Whats really important here is that now we know for sure that a g5 pb *can* be produced and that it would be a practical machine.

Yes, now we know that the heat produced by the processor is not anymore as big an issue as it seemed to be just some time ago. This does *not* prove that g5 pb can be produced, there are other juice-hungry components on the G5 powermac that has to be replaced or improved before we can expect a g5 laptop according to apple standards (battery life, size, elegance).

In my opinion the most worrying components are the those that control powermac's hypertransport buses. Sure one does not need two processors in a laptop so that takes away some of the complexity but I still fear that it's gonna take some work and thus time to make them powerbook savvy.

edit: added the *not* that was missing...

singletrack
Jan 21, 2004, 09:43 PM
The CPU isn't the only thing that draws a lot of power. A big system chip and fast RAM draws considerable power also. I recall Apple said the system chip in the G5 desktop was a big power drain also.

So it's nice the CPU size and power requirements have come down but that's only a part of the equation.

Sol
Jan 21, 2004, 09:52 PM
This IBM document basically tells us that the 970FX can do the same work as the original 970 with half the power. Surelly this would make a re-design of the PowerMac case possible. If two more 3.5" hard drives can be squeezed in there then a lot of current G5 owners would see that as a good reason to upgrade.

While I would not go so far as to predict G5 powerbooks in the next revision, I see no reason now why iMacs could not use these new processors. From reports on the net Motorola is once again dragging its feet manufacturing G4s and surelly this will affect Apple's current momentum.

ktlx
Jan 21, 2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by nighthawk
The 970 has a 800mhz to 1Ghz external bus speed. Compare this to the P4 800mhz internal bus speed (which really runs at 200mhz with a 4x multiplier). This means that the P4 only has a 200mhz to play with to access memory, which can only be double pumped to 400mhz.

Nope. The current Pentium 4's access memory at 800Mhz using four samples in each cycle at 200Mhz. That is why the 865 and 875 use dual channel DDR400 memory. The dual channels given them an effective 800Mhz to match the processor.

Of course, this means that the 970 has a L3 cache up to 8GB running at the "same" speed as the P4 Extreme 2MB cache.

Again this is incorrect. L3 cache always has much lower latency than main memory. That is one of the reasons why the G4 with 2MB of L3 cache but a pitifully slow main memory access was able to keep up with the Pentium 4's for many tasks.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 21, 2004, 09:59 PM
once again? what do you mean? the fastest g4 was a year ago at 1.42. they arent dragging their feet they have gone into reverse.

sethypoo
Jan 21, 2004, 10:03 PM
Is the 90nm or 65nm (nano-meter?) size going to be used in the next PowerBook? I'd imagine it's going to be the 65nm, but someone please clarify this for me, I'm a little miffed on the subject.....

In other words, clue me and all the other hapless know-nothing's around here.....:)

dho
Jan 21, 2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Sol
This IBM document basically tells us that the 970FX can do the same work as the original 970 with half the power. Surelly this would make a re-design of the PowerMac case possible. If two more 3.5" hard drives can be squeezed in there then a lot of current G5 owners would see that as a good reason to upgrade....

I agree with your thinking, I would like to add, for general purposes having two optical slots might be a higher priority(for me at least), now if they coupled that with an extra 2 drives, THEN they could get some g5 owners to shell out annother $3000 +

Selecter
Jan 21, 2004, 10:18 PM
if they can get 2 2 Ghz 970fx's in a 1U server from factor, they can do it with a Powerbook too. it's coming folks. I would expect it at the same time they bring the 3 Ghz desktops.

You'll have to wait another 6 to 7 months, grasshopper. :D

jouster
Jan 21, 2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
Is the 90nm or 65nm (nano-meter?) size going to be used in the next PowerBook? I'd imagine it's going to be the 65nm, but someone please clarify this for me, I'm a little miffed on the subject.....

In other words, clue me and all the other hapless know-nothing's around here.....:)

I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would be able to wait for, say, a 980 (or even a 970) at 65 nM. A quick zoom through the boards here or somewhere like arstechnica will show that most believe 65nM to be some way off yet.

The PB's would be far too slow and old if they had to stick to MOT's 33 Mhz bumps til then. Sales would be nonexistent. I think you can take it to the bank that there will be PB G5s at 90nM, using the 970 fx.

jj2003
Jan 21, 2004, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Selecter
if they can get 2 2 Ghz 970fx's in a 1U server from factor, they can do it with a Powerbook too.


I would not use the xserve as an example. I do not want my powerbook look like this[1], sound like this[2], do you? :)

[1]
http://a544.g.akamai.net/7/544/51/3b0fc765a545a1/www.apple.com/xserve/images/xs_indextop_010604_02.gif

[2] http://www.totalofficesupply.com/images/cserver/full/HVRC1633.GIF

123
Jan 21, 2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by nighthawk
The data-sheet for the P4e does describe the two ALU (integer calcs) as running at "twice the core clock" which is 1600mhz for the P4e. This is also unlike the 970xx which runs at the full clock speed.


I don't know anything about the P4EE but the ALUs will be the same as the P4's:

By "core clock" they mean the processor speed, e.g. 3.2 GHz. The two ALUs are effectively running at 6.4GHz, making them 3 times faster than the 970's.

stingerman
Jan 21, 2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by nighthawk
Originally posted by csubear

I am not disputing anything you say, but I just wanted to add something in the mix here...

The Pentium is only a 32-bit chip, so when the 970 is running in full 64-bit mode, it only has the equivelent of twice the cache. I agree that the L1 cache size could be improved.



1. The 970 is always running in 64-bit mode when running OS X. The various OS X frameworks are just not 64-bit safe yet, so you can't safely pass 64-bit data-types to the various OS X frameworks just yet. But, you can use the 64-bit operations within your own code.

2. All 970 instructions are actually uniformly 32-bits long, even the instructions acting on 64-bit operands. The physical size of the instruction descriptor has nothing to do with its bitness. That is one of the advantages of the RISC architecture, perfect instruction alignment. Even the new mulit-operation, multi data (IBM calls "SIMOMD") are 32-bits long though they execute on 64-bit data types. So there is the same L1 Address space taken up, no more.

3. Just because its a 64-bit processor does not mean that the programmer is forced to define all operands as 64-bits long. It means that 64-bit data types are handled a lot more efficiently. So this is really a none issue when it comes to cache usage. Actually a 32-bit processor probably uses up a lot more resources when trying to do a double precision (64-bit) floating point instruction.

4. The PowerMac architecture makes the entire RAM space equivalent in speed to an L3 cache!

This is a radically better design than any other P4 or G4 system before it.

stingerman
Jan 21, 2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by 123
I don't know anything about the P4EE but the ALUs will be the same as the P4's:

By "core clock" they mean the processor speed, e.g. 3.2 GHz. The two ALUs are effectively running at 6.4GHz, making them 3 times faster than the 970's.

The P4's Integer units are double clocked but that is out of necessity. They have do do a heck of a lot of work and need it just to get by. That is why when you look at SpecInt from a per MHz point of view the 970 is still faster. It is too complicated to go into here, but as an oversimplification, each P4 Integer instruction gets broken down into multiple core instructions, whereas the 970's instructions are almost all 1 to 1. The P4 Integer unit also wears more hats than the 970's which has other units that run in parallel for some of the tasks that the P4 has has to handle in the Integer unit.

The P4 has to do a lot of work for every instruction due to its x86 legacy and CISC architecture compared to the RISC 970.

iomar
Jan 21, 2004, 11:02 PM
Perty Cool!

spaceballl
Jan 21, 2004, 11:07 PM
If Apple were AMD or Intel (talking about the P4 mobile... not the Pentium M), they'd change the packaging and market this to vendors as a laptop chip for "desktop replacement" notebooks ASAP. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you look at it, Apple has a form factor that they won't vary from and until manufacturing can be fine tuned and revised, there's no way they could put that chip in a 1 inch thick notebook. Expect our G5 PB chips to be 90nm... It's good that we're there, and I don't think Apple will wait for 65nm as its too far off, but this chip isn't ready. They'll lower the pincount likely and wait for the next stepping, at least, and hope for it to cut back 5 - 10 watts of heat.
-Kev

stingerman
Jan 21, 2004, 11:13 PM
As far as W usage, all I can say is WOW. IBM has pulled off a technological miracle. According to Motorola's charts the 970FX dissipates as mush W at 2GHz as the G4 7447 at 1.3GHZ! Now we know that the G5 architecture is a lot more efficient heat and energy wise than the G4 architecture. And, the 970FX can evidently dynamically scale not only frequency but also voltage. The chart implies that the FX will dynamically scale from 1.4-2GHz and 1-1.3V.

This is really a huge advance. The only unknown is the ASIC Controller. But, we have to believe it has been refined to the 90NM process as well. This means that the 970FX will easily go into Apple's entire line of computers. This is what Steve Jobs probably meant when he said that the G5 was the MACs future at the last show. It is exactly what Apple needs to do and quickly!

spaceballl
Jan 21, 2004, 11:18 PM
So let's throw powerbooks completely out of the equation for one second (if y'all can haha... i want one so badly).

But this is great for Apple that these chips are readily available. First of all, they are far cheaper to make. If you have a big silicon wafer and you cut it up to small chips, you can make a lot more when these chips are 90nm than when they are 130nm. While it is unlikely Apple will pass this savings onto the consumer, there's a small chance of it, but their profit margins should get higher which is better for them, as a business.

The reduced heat reduction is great news not just for laptops, but also for their desktops. I'm sure Apple really enjoyed marketing their comparmentalized air cooling systems in the G5s, and while the design is something to be proud of, the design came out of necesity, not out of anything else. The original G5s were HOT. Having all those fans in there not only increased noise, but every time you have a moving part in a PC like that based on motors and such, the failure rate goes up (more tech service ************ for apple to deal with).

I'm wondering if we can expect a small chassis redesign from Apple with this revision. If nothing else, maybe internally. There is no need for them to have so many fans running at such a high speed. I wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of some of the fans and lowered the RPM of the remaining ones and no longer market the compartmentalized cooling system. Let's see.

-Kev

stingerman
Jan 21, 2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by spaceballl
Unfortunately or fortunately, however you look at it, Apple has a form factor that they won't vary from and until manufacturing can be fine tuned and revised, there's no way they could put that chip in a 1 inch thick notebook.
-Kev

Though I don't know what Apple will do, technically the G5 is more than capable to go into a 1" PB, even the PB 12". Re-look at those W comparisons between the G4 and the G5. These numbers tell us that Apple has a lot to work with. They can easily put a 2GHz 970FX into a 15" and 17". They can probably bump the 12" to 1.6.

More than that, the FX will easily go to 3GHz+ if you compare it to the W that the P4, even the Prescott is planning to use (120W+!). I would even venture that 4GHz is not that far away for the PowerMacs. Apple really has a loaded gun here. What a turn of events. Maybe we will see Apple surpass Intel in GHz in addition to raw performance by the end of the year.

mzlin
Jan 21, 2004, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Mr Maui
Just found a spec sheet for the 7455 at 1GHz and it says the typical consumption is 15w. Does that seem right?

Seems pretty high if the 1.4GHz G5 is only requiring 12.3w.

Any thoughts?

The 7455 was produced on a 130nm process. The new G5 (970FX) is produced on a 90nm process. The smaller the circuitry, the lower the voltage and the less heat lost per cycle.

If you read the IBM pdf that this thread is about, you will see the old G5 970 on the 130nm process was as hot as the 7455 in terms of power consumption at a given speed.

I would venture the prediction that we will see G5 Powerbooks soon, with speeds according to size, maybe 1.2Ghz 12", 1.4Ghz 15", 1.5Ghz 17". It's still possible that Apple will wait for the 65nm 980 late this year and use speed-bumped G4s in the meantime, but several things make me think not: 1, At these guesstimated speeds the power consumption should be about the same in each model as the old G4 chip being replaced; 2, I don't think there are ever going to be 90nm G4s, and any faster 130nm G4s in the 15" than the ones now would reduce battery life beyond the current barely acceptable 2-3hour range; and 3, there is now poor differentiation between the iBooks and Powerbooks, and the best explanation for Apple choosing the G4 instead of the 750GX (also described in the current PDF) for the iBooks is that they are planning a rapid transition to G5 Powerbooks.

There were those people who said G5 Powerbooks are going to be impossible for some time to come because of the heat. Well, they were partially right, in that the original G5 was way too hot. But now things have changed. Apple has certainly been planning for this years in advance, and I would be surprised if they don't make a G5 Powerbook at the earliest possible opportunity.

Michael

stingerman
Jan 21, 2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by spaceballl

I'm wondering if we can expect a small chassis redesign from Apple with this revision. If nothing else, maybe internally. There is no need for them to have so many fans running at such a high speed. I wouldn't be surprised if they got rid of some of the fans and lowered the RPM of the remaining ones and no longer market the compartmentalized cooling system. Let's see.

-Kev

I totally agree that this will give Apple a lot of flexibility in design. What I think we will see happen to the PowerMac G5 is that the main CPU compartment will shrink. Maybe only one Fan instead of two. This will allow the G5 to have two optical drives, 4 SATA HDs and an additional PCI-X slot.

It will also allow for the G5 to enter the consumer line in a big way with smaller and radical designs. That really is what the 20th Anniversary Mac needs to be about, the consumer line which needs the most help right now.

mzlin
Jan 21, 2004, 11:32 PM
7455 was 180nm. Sorry. 7447/7457 in current Powerbooks are 130nm, and dissipation is unknown although in an earlier Macrumors thread people were guessing 15W at 1.33Ghz.

<http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/topic/39910-1.html>

Michael

ktlx
Jan 21, 2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
4. The PowerMac architecture makes the entire RAM space equivalent in speed to an L3 cache!

Not true. The memory is clocked at basically the same rate at L3 cache but the latency is tremendous in comparison. L3 cache 800Mhz will always be faster than main memory at 800Mhz because of latency.

mzlin
Jan 21, 2004, 11:43 PM
Found the specs for the G4 in the current Powerbooks.

<http://e-www.motorola.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7457EC.pdf>

Typical 18.3W@1.267Ghz, max 25.6@1.267Ghz, where the Powerbook 15" is right now. As for the 970FX:

"Typical power 12.3W@1.4GHz, 24.5W@2.0GHz", so maybe typical 18W@1.6+Ghz?

Michael

bannedagain
Jan 22, 2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by ktlx
Not true. The memory is clocked at basically the same rate at L3 cache but the latency is tremendous in comparison. L3 cache 800Mhz will always be faster than main memory at 800Mhz because of latency.

True: Have you ever disabled the cache and seen how slow your computer runs?

The North Bridge is a huge bottle neck and thats why AMD has put the memory controler on the chip to remove that particular bottleneck.

ffakr
Jan 22, 2004, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by ktlx
Not true. The memory is clocked at basically the same rate at L3 cache but the latency is tremendous in comparison. L3 cache 800Mhz will always be faster than main memory at 800Mhz because of latency.

Wow, There is a lot of FUD in this thread. I'm not picking on ktlx but a lot of people here need to actually look a few things up and learn something before they start teaching others.
The P4EE has an ON-DIE L3 cache.. Just like the ON-DIE L2 cache that normal Pentium4s have (P4EE is actually a Xeon). On-die means... anyone? anyone? It runs at the same clock speed as the rest of the die.. 3.2GHz.

It's also not fair to make blanket statements about the processor buses.
The P4c and P4EE have an 800MHz 64bit wide processor to system bus. Bandwidth is 6.4 GB/sec
The PPC 970 has two uni-directional 32bit HT-like buses running at up to 1GHz. That's 4GB/sec up and 4GB/sec for a total bandwidth of 8GB/sec, but you don't get to use more than half of that in either direction. The bus on the 970 moves data in packets too.. so you have to subtract a routing/packet overhead from max theoretical bandwidth. The 1GHz G5 bus is closer to 7GB/sec.

Dual Channel DDR PC 400 (PC3200), for comparison, has 6.4 GB/sec of bandwidth (for both channels).
The P4c doesn't have a 'lame' bus.

Opteron beats them both though, as it's on die memory controller has half the latency of the P4 (and presumably half the 970 in a G5).

amir12
Jan 22, 2004, 12:41 AM
Hey guys, i attached the Heat Dissipation for the Pentium-M.

The best processor for Mobile PC's. They run very cool, quiet, and battery life is over 3 hours running full power all the time. IE: games. I get 4.5 hours doing normal stuff like internet browsing, music, and office if I limit the CPU to 600mhz (max) using the max battery setting in XP.

Note: the P-M is 130nm. Intel actually did a very good job. The 1.4 GHz P-M is "equivalent in speed to a Desktop P4 ~2.2 GHz." I've used the P4-M's and they are terrible for mobility.

Comparing these numbers it seems that Apple should be able to design very nice G5 PowerBook @ 1.4 GHz using the 970FX (perhaps even higher GHz). Although they must also account for any other heat dissipation from other components on the mother board that have not yet been specified by IBM or apple, but they have been discussed in this thread.

Although using the P-M wattage as a comparison, things seem optimistic for apple!

I also have a question for the more technical: Does anyone know how the current g4/g5's (and a prediction for the FX) scale processor wise. I mean in comparison to Intel's SpeedStep technology. Also how great are the power settings in OSX, or other third party battery management apps.

As an example I can limit my Mobile PC to 600mhz to get the max battery. When the computer is idle, it will drop down to under 100mhz. This obviously increases battery life tremendously when CPU usage is small or idle.

I may be completely wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that Linux/*inx operating systems and some random others can take advantage of a CPU instruction when the CPU is idle so that battery life is dramatically increased if the processor/board support it. Some software makers have attempted to create similar programs for windows (I think it was called "CPU Idle").

Thanks everyone and I hope the Intel Chart leads to a better discussion.

-Amir

EDIT: Also in case anyone is interested in the full pdf that includes all of the technical information on the P-M the link is:

ftp://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/25261202.pdf

tortoise
Jan 22, 2004, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by nighthawk
Of course, this means that the 970 has a L3 cache up to 8GB running at the "same" speed as the P4 Extreme 2MB cache.


Unfortunately, not even close. Latency matters a LOT for memory performance, and L3 cache will run rings around main memory for latency. To add more injury, the latency to main memory for the PPC970 is actually pretty mediocre as such things go, fully TWICE the latency of the AMD64 chips to main memory, and possibly worse than the P4EE (I don't know the latency numbers for this off the top of my head).

So no, the higher bandwidth is really no substitute. If the latency was comparable your comparison would be valid, but in practice they aren't even close.

Telomar
Jan 22, 2004, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
Unfortunately, not even close. Latency matters a LOT for memory performance, and L3 cache will run rings around main memory for latency. To add more injury, the latency to main memory for the PPC970 is actually pretty mediocre as such things go, fully TWICE the latency of the AMD64 chips to main memory, and possibly worse than the P4EE (I don't know the latency numbers for this off the top of my head).

Latency for ordinary PIVs is about 50% higher than Opterons in terms of processor cycles. When you actually work it out in terms of time they are actually pretty similar but it's worth noting the PIVs have an unusually low latency bus. The PPC 970s is dreadful but I'd also expect it to be one of the first things that gets fixed...

Originally posted by me_17213
the MIPS on te older 970 is alot higher than the FX version, I'm wondering why the difference would be so much.

970 1.8 7584 MIPS

970FX 2.0 5800 MIPS

Anybody care to fill me in? Typo. Dhrystones are a near useless benchmark on modern microprocessors since the whole thing can be stored in cache. It ends up just scaling with frequency and in fact you can do a lot of things to tamper with the test if you were so inclined. Not really sure why anybody still quotes it, even the maker doesn't see the worth in the test anymore.

tortoise
Jan 22, 2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
The P4's Integer units are double clocked but that is out of necessity.


Errmm... Double pumped ALUs are bleeding edge technology, and increase the performance of the CPU at relatively little cost. Everyone could benefit from this technology. And it makes sense if you consider it; the ALU is simpler than some of the other pipelines, and if you can manage to drive it twice as hard as the other pipelines you have a nice performance improvement on your hands on the integer side with only marginally more chip complexity.

You make it sound like it is a bad thing, but it is actually a cool thing. Mind you, I don't think Intel's cores are all that efficient in many ways, but they have found a way to exploit a design inefficiency that currently exists in both the PPC970 and AMD64 CPUs. I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that AMD was working on double-pumped ALUs, and they have no difficulty performing as well or better than the PPC970 clock for clock in their current incarnations.

Expect to see double-pumped ALUs in future AMD and IBM chips. It makes too much sense for them not to do it too.

splashman
Jan 22, 2004, 02:00 AM
Regarding G5s in Powerbooks, I'm under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that the supporting chipset for the G5 will also consume more power, so Apple's engineers have more to think about than just processor wattage.

Regarding the suggestion for a re-designed G5 tower (smaller, or more drive bays) to reflect the lower-wattage 90nm procs, I'd say Apple is NOT going to dump a tower design that quickly. Whether you like the current design or not, Apple invested big bucks in it, and they are not going to invest in a step backwards by effectively LOWERING the tower's ability to dissipate heat. Instead, the current tower's capacity for heat dissipation will be useful for quite some time -- i.e., procs that are much faster than 3ghz. And with the first gen of 90nm procs (<3ghz), the fans will run that much less, reducing fan noise even more. I'm happy with my G4, but I'd be even happier if it were as quiet at the G5.

And regarding the need for more drive bays, etc. . . . Up until August, my trusty 9600 was my main work machine. I got it just as the first G3's were released, as I hated the fact that the G3 tower had so much less expandability. In the five years since I got the 9600, I made good use of all those PCI slots and RAM slots, and liked to gloat over the poor souls who were lured into the tiny new towers. But now that I'm getting along very nicely with my new G4, it seems to me that only a very small niche has need for boxes with multiple optical drives, more than 2 HDs, and more PCI and RAM slots. Sure, it would be nice, but I can't fault Apple's marketing or engineering strategy.

JW Pepper
Jan 22, 2004, 02:41 AM
It is clear that the new G5 generates less heat than the present G4's used in the powerbooks, however what are the dimensions of the new G5's. Will they actually physically fit inside a 1" thick enclosure with a heat sink?

tiselday
Jan 22, 2004, 02:49 AM
Forget the G5 Powerbook! for a moment at least :)

But, come on, Apple, give us a silent G5 Cube!!! 12W@1.4 Ghz would make it feasible.

Something as cute as this would take my $$$ (or rather, my kr) inmediately!!!

http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/making/cube_9.html

:D

T

jderman
Jan 22, 2004, 02:55 AM
Guys,

It's not gonna happen tomorrow, or even day after tomorrow, but it will happen soon. They got over the big heat/power hurdel. Now all they have to do is redesign the motherboard and make it function in different power modes (Not that this is as simple as chopped liver). The big challenge is over. G5PBs are on their way. I'm banking on an introduction at WWDC. It makes sense. 5 months is enoguh R+D time for this (Thats not including the previous 6+ months that apple has probably already known about this and pre-empted it's development). Also consider apple's revenus. They have recreational R+D cash to develop this (And for god sakes it's the powerbook which equals big $$$ for them!).

It's coming

Kermit
Jan 22, 2004, 03:52 AM
Now, I do not want to ruin everybodys day here, but I still have to point it out. That 24+ W at 2.0 GHz is typical heat dissipation, meaning that the the number for maximum h.d. might be as much as 5-10 W more.

Sun Baked
Jan 22, 2004, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Kermit
Now, I do not want to ruin everybodys day here, but I still have to point it out. That 24+ W at 2.0 GHz is typical heat dissipation, meaning that the the number for maximum h.d. might be as much as 5-10 W more. Maximum -- when looking at the Apple XServe Max Power chart -- seems to be a LOT more than that.

The 2.0GHz 90nm G5 tipped the scales at 55W Max Power in the Apple XServe G5 docs.

Head Wound
Jan 22, 2004, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by JW Pepper
It is clear that the new G5 generates less heat than the present G4's used in the powerbooks, however what are the dimensions of the new G5's. Will they actually physically fit inside a 1" thick enclosure with a heat sink?


If they generate less heat, wouldn't they need a SMALLER heat sink? Also, wouldn't the new 90nm manufacturing process mean a smaller chip as well?

l008com
Jan 22, 2004, 05:12 AM
1.1 GHz Bus. If Apple comes out with 'new' G5 towers with a new Max speed of only 2.2 GHz.... There will be a **** storm of bitching on every computer forum on the planet!!!! But IBM has kept things secret for Apple in the past, I hope they are doing it again here.

Kermit
Jan 22, 2004, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Maximum -- when looking at the Apple XServe Max Power chart -- seems to be a LOT more than that.

The 2.0GHz 90nm G5 tipped the scales at 55W Max Power in the Apple XServe G5 docs.

I was basing my estimates on the information available regarding the G4. If what you say is true, then a G5 Powerbook might still be a long way off. Or do you disagree?

jderman
Jan 22, 2004, 05:39 AM
I don't know about you guys but i know that when I'm rendering a movie in FCP, watching a DVD, and working on a photoshop project all at once, the PB is usually plugged into the wall. On that note, who cares wether or not the max power consumption is at 30 or 40. The reality is that a very small portion of the PB market actually does that sort of thing without AC. if typical powerconsumption is in the 20-watt area (which mind you typical power consumption on a g5 probably equates to processing power much greater than the current g4 running at max power) then why not?

Sun Baked
Jan 22, 2004, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Kermit
I was basing my estimates on the information available regarding the G4. If what you say is true, then a G5 Powerbook might still be a long way off. Or do you disagree? Hard to tell, they may be similar in Power Usage (but they may be using different test software to get typical usage).

So a 1.4GHz PPC970FX isn't too big a stretch for an iMac.

But the UniNorth 3.x still creates quite a bit of heat -- look at the heatsink (http://www.970eval.com/g5-disassembly/P1010061.jpg) for the thing.

Remember the iMacs and PowerBooks of old, they used to use the PowerMac chipsets (like the eMac still does) -- so we "may" be waiting for the UniNorth 3.x to go 90nm, or Apple to make a integrated iMac/PowerBook chipset like the Pangea/Intrepid.

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Maximum -- when looking at the Apple XServe Max Power chart -- seems to be a LOT more than that.

The 2.0GHz 90nm G5 tipped the scales at 55W Max Power in the Apple XServe G5 docs.

This may be counting the dual processor setup. I think Apple tends to count both processors together when quoting power usage (if you can even get a quote out of them). I recall back in the WWDC time frame being told that the PowerMac G5 put off a typical of around 100W - which seems ludicrous and can only be accounted for by totaling both CPUs.

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Booga
If you compare the performance numbers, the 970FX is a bit slower per MHz for SPEC numbers than the original 970. Although this is usually the case as the processors get faster clocks, it's kind of unfortunate to see.

It lists a 1.8GHz 970 as 828 SPECint2K and 1036 SPECfp2K. The 970FX at 2.0GHz (which is 1.11x faster in clock) gets 890 (1.07x) and 1100 (1.06x). It makes me wonder how it will scale into the 2.4+ GHz range.

The reason for this is actually incredibly simple - overhead. Regardless of the CPU frequency there is almost always a fixed amount of overhead that simply doesn't scale as well as the CPU's clock frequency, thus resulting in less than the expected gains (here 7/6% actual vs 11% expected).

So now that you know, don't be so surprised :D .

123
Jan 22, 2004, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
The P4's Integer units are double clocked but that is out of necessity. They have do do a heck of a lot of work and need it just to get by. .....

WTF are you talking about?

Simple integer instructions have 0.5 cycles latency and 0.5 cycles throughput (P4), which is fast. Double-pumping is a good thing (tm) and has nothing to do with the RISC/CISC debate or whatever you are talking about, end of discussion. "out of necesssity"... tsss.

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Samurai980
Well it is nice to see IBM try to improve things, but why still such a low amount of L1, L2, and L3 cache?

Now the PowerPC 970 has a measily 32K L1 and a tiny 512K L2. Why doesn't IBM/Apple upgrade this tiny thing? I mean there would be a significant speed and performance boost as a result.

As others have mentioned, the 970s caches (L1&L2) aren't particularly small - they are in fact pretty average for the desktop market. The lack of L3 is presumably due to the bandwidth abilities of the FSB - the designers may not have seen it as necessary for their performance targets, and given how expensive L3 is that isn't surprising (just look at the cost of a P4 vs a P4EE).

Another interesting difference is the transistor count of the three processors. P4EE is 178m, AMD64 is 106m, and Apple is 58m.

The reasons for the difference is many, so I'll just breeze over the top ones.

1) P4EE has a HUGE amount of L3 cache on die, which accounts for the added transistor count over the P4, which I think was just south of 100m

2) AMD64 has a large transistor budget for x86-64 that the P4 doesn't.

3) The P4 & AMD64 have a large transistor budget for x86 to muOps conversion (that is, the conversion from external to internal instruction set).

4) AMD64 has, as you said, more L1 & L2 cache than the 970. The P4 has less L1 & L2, but makes up for it (in spades) with L3.

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by 123
WTF are you talking about?

Simple integer instructions have 0.5 cycles latency and 0.5 cycles throughput (P4), which is fast. Double-pumping is a good thing (tm) and has nothing to do with the RISC/CISC debate or whatever you are talking about, end of discussion. "out of necesssity"... tsss.

There is no debating that the P4's integer throughput is good, but the necessity comes from the fact that at least half of the instructions going through a P4 have to go through the integer units, if only to do address calculations.

Just compare spec numbers - if the P4's integer units were able to go full out on only programmed operations then it'd smoke any other processor anywhere on integer operations (6.4 Ghz is quite a force to be reckoned with for integer) but the reality is that it doesn't - there is simply too much overhead in the CPU for that.

So while the P4 is an impressive integer machine, the x86 instruction set and the CPU design put together club it in the kneecaps.

Sun Baked
Jan 22, 2004, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
This may be counting the dual processor setup. I think Apple tends to count both processors together when quoting power usage (if you can even get a quote out of them). I recall back in the WWDC time frame being told that the PowerMac G5 put off a typical of around 100W - which seems ludicrous and can only be accounted for by totaling both CPUs. Not really the G4 at 1.33GHz is running max at 30-45W depending on the chip 74x5/74x7, version number, and the core voltage. Plus the rest of the numbers seem to be single CPUs.

So the single 130nm PPC970 may very well have been cranking out 97W @ 2.0GHz -- just seems quite high when Motorola was always talking about their 10W G4s.

I_am_Andrew posted this MAXIMUM POWER chart at ARS (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9080959175&r=55000975857#55000975857)... and if you follow the discussion, Apple may have swapped a couple numbers.

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
As far as W usage, all I can say is WOW. IBM has pulled off a technological miracle. According to Motorola's charts the 970FX dissipates as mush W at 2GHz as the G4 7447 at 1.3GHZ! Now we know that the G5 architecture is a lot more efficient heat and energy wise than the G4 architecture. And, the 970FX can evidently dynamically scale not only frequency but also voltage. The chart implies that the FX will dynamically scale from 1.4-2GHz and 1-1.3V.

Watch how you generalize :). That chart has a fatal flaw in it - it states the dissipation when running at a core voltage of 1.6v. However all of the PowerBooks run at either 1.3v or 1.1v (don't recall which) so those power quotes are (assuming 1.3v) over 50% to high! And if the PowerBooks run at 1.1v, then they are over twice as high!

Given all that, I would bet that only the 12" runs at 1.1v, and thus the 17" draws about 14w@1.3Ghz. So while that may be a feather in the cap of PowerBook G5 speculators, it remains to be seen how long it will be until we actually see one of these puppies and at what speed they will be rated at.

Also of note is that the G5 @ 1.4Ghz is running on 1.1v logic (not specified in the paper, but it is consistent with the power output) so that along may require some redesign of the PowerBook logic boards.

mkaake
Jan 22, 2004, 07:37 AM
me, i'm just happy ;)

i figure, these are going to show up in some product, be it a cube, laptop, or desktop... which means refurbs, old machines and used machines suddenly get cheaper :)

call me cheap (or poor - that would be more accurate), but i love it when new products come out so i can get what everyone used to think was great at a good price...

matt

dongmin
Jan 22, 2004, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by l008com
1.1 GHz Bus. If Apple comes out with 'new' G5 towers with a new Max speed of only 2.2 GHz.... There will be a **** storm of bitching on every computer forum on the planet!!!! But IBM has kept things secret for Apple in the past, I hope they are doing it again here. My guess is that the Xserves zere originally planned to top out at 2.2 ghz and 1.1 ghz bus but Apple scaled it back for some reason. IBM will not play spoiler for Apple, meaning expect higher (much higher, I'm guessing) numbers for the Power Macs when they're revised.

As others have noted, the big issue facing Apple now is how to make rest of the motherboard more efficient to fit into the PB form factor. The CPU is no longer an issue.

macmunch
Jan 22, 2004, 08:41 AM
Hooo you forgett something !

Why should Apple bring a PowerBook G5 that only cotains a G5 Chip and a new Architecture ?

Enclosure ! Same ?
Graphic Chip ! same ? ---> There is no new one from ATI or Nvidia
Battery ? ---> G5 chip and the same stupid battery ? 2 to 4 hours ?

Yup, right they dont will do !!! We will see PB G5 later this year and for me I think it will be a real Generation 5 Powerbook !

Like a new Graphic Chip
G5 processor
This new Power Technology (fuelcell or ?) Thosiba showed prototyp Laptops with it in CeBit 2003 I saw them for real !

So also Apple will do when the get the Technologies !

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by 123
WTF are you talking about?

Simple integer instructions have 0.5 cycles latency and 0.5 cycles throughput (P4), which is fast. Double-pumping is a good thing (tm) and has nothing to do with the RISC/CISC debate or whatever you are talking about, end of discussion. "out of necesssity"... tsss.

Sounds great on paper, now go look at the comparative SpecINT scores and hit reality. Do your own due diligence before fly off the handle. The P4 is a great attempt to extend an aging ISA, but she's old and needs to be retired. Look at the W difference between IBM's unencumbered design compared against even the 90NM Prescot! The 90NM 970 has a lot more room to grow than the 90NM P4 design. This is more a reflection of the age of the respective products. IBM is working off of a clean slate using current best practices. Intel engineers are under the weight of a huge legacy, so of course IBM's engineers are free to innovate. Why do you think Intel came out with such a radical approach to their Itanium design? They know this and it is no reflection on them, more a consequence of history. IBM has the momentum right now and probably for at least the next two to three years.

ionas
Jan 22, 2004, 09:06 AM
the 12 and 15" versions must AT LEAST hold 4.5 hours while doing office and internet activly.

else i dont see a comparison possible to the upcoming centrino technology which will feature cpus cores with 2MB memory on die.

this said they would need to build in a very very large battery.

also the system has to be fanless during normal day use.

both requirements are hard to met with a 90nm g5 at speeds above 1.5 ghz.

so - suprise me apple - please - else you will lose your pretty notebook market slowly but steady.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Kermit
Now, I do not want to ruin everybodys day here, but I still have to point it out. That 24+ W at 2.0 GHz is typical heat dissipation, meaning that the the number for maximum h.d. might be as much as 5-10 W more.

Keep in mind that Apple has a really cool dynamic bus slewing feature. So it can instantly scale the frequency of the processor. I also suspect that the PowerTune feature in the FX allows for Voltage scaling, which has an even greater impact on heat (a quadratic reduction, in addition to the linear reduction currently achieved with the frequency alone.)

If Apple applies the same technology to the GPU and the HD, you've got yourself one very low power and quiet Notebook.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by amir12

Although using the P-M wattage as a comparison, things seem optimistic for apple!

I also have a question for the more technical: Does anyone know how the current g4/g5's (and a prediction for the FX) scale processor wise. I mean in comparison to Intel's SpeedStep technology. Also how great are the power settings in OSX, or other third party battery management apps.



The P-M is actually a modified old P-III. As you mentioned the typical W for the P-M is greater than that of the 970FX, so this is very exciting for Apple - making a PB @2GHz a real possibility and looking like Apple will beat Intel to it!

The Apple architecture uses bus slewing and not the older stepping. The G5 dynamically changes its frequency based not only on power source but also usage. The more demand placed on it, the greater the frequency. Of course, Processor temperature is constantly monitored and the frequency will scale down if the temp gets too hot. The dynamic nature of Apple's bus slewing technology is a lot more efficient than the power source bound stepping in legacy products.

An added note is the new dynamic Voltage slewing that IBM has been writing about in their research papers and evidently is part of the FX "PowerTune" design. As the frequency decreases, the FX may be able to dynamically reduce the Voltage as well. Thus, the spec shows a range of 1-1.3V for the 970FX, where as the 970 is fixed at 1.3V. This has a much greater effect on heat than frequency alone.

One more IBM innovation that may have found its way into the FX is what IBM terms "Voltage Islands". The Core can be divided up into different regions, where certain regions or Islands can always be running at the lower voltage not withstanding the voltage of the Cache or the core processing logic.

gekko513
Jan 22, 2004, 09:28 AM
From The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/35057.html)

The 970FX, meanwhile, consumes a mere 12.3W at 1.4GHz, paving the way for PowerBook G5s. That figure is comparable to the 7.5W a 1GHz consumption of the G4-class Motorola MPC7447 that drives the current PowerBook G4s.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
Unfortunately, not even close. Latency matters a LOT for memory performance, and L3 cache will run rings around main memory for latency. To add more injury, the latency to main memory for the PPC970 is actually pretty mediocre as such things go, fully TWICE the latency of the AMD64 chips to main memory, and possibly worse than the P4EE (I don't know the latency numbers for this off the top of my head).

So no, the higher bandwidth is really no substitute. If the latency was comparable your comparison would be valid, but in practice they aren't even close.

In practice they matter a lot less than you would have us believe. Look ahead algorithms minimize and in many cases circumvent latency factors altogether. And, yes a faster bus does minimize latency issues. Too, the G5 bus is Switched with out-of-band management, which is much faster than the shared busses and contention slowdowns of the XEON systems.

Another factor affecting performance is bandwidth and the G5 architecture has greater bandwidth. So when you are dealing with larger data sets, latency is a much smaller component of the performance equation. Apple has designed the G5 to perform very well on multimedia applications, including photos, videos and music. Transferring large textures for 3-D realtime graphics greatly benefits as well.

So to simply speak of latency as the driver behind performance is misleading. I believe that the G5 has the best balance of Latency, Bandwidth and bus frequency for an overall faster system. Couple that with IBM's advanced look ahead algorithms and it isn't an issue at all.

rog
Jan 22, 2004, 09:59 AM
Well this is disappointing news. 7 months later and only 10% faster. Uh oh. Also, the 2GHz 970fx is still too much of a power hog to be used in a powerbook. While the 1.4 GHz is better, who wants such a slow, single processor machine in 2004? Remeber the G5 is only about 20% faster than a same clock speed G4. In altivec, it's no faster at all. Looks like they'll have to move to a 65nm process before fast G5s get into powerbooks. Very sad for pro portable users.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by ionas

so - suprise me apple - please - else you will lose your pretty notebook market slowly but steady.

Why the Battle Front trolling? You expect a 2MB core P-M to use less W than the 970FX? That's madness, heat is a function of capacitance and the more transistors you put in there the more energy will be used and heat dissipated. The greater the number of transistors the greater the required voltage, the greater the heat! It's a vicious cycle for Intel. Evidently, the 970FX design isn't anywhere near its limits yet and cache tricks are not needed yet to get meaningful increases in performance.

The fact is that the P-M needs the larger Cache to scale performance wise. Simply increasing the frequency will not give the P-M the performance scaling the clock would have you believe. A higher clock requires deeper pipelines as the various stages need to be simplified, forcing additional stages to be added and thus the P-M will start looking more and more like the P4. Intel needs a new design altogether to keep up with the 970. No BF intended, the Pentium is a good design for its generation, but really we are in the year 2004 now!

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by rog
Well this is disappointing news. 7 months later and only 10% faster. Uh oh. Also, the 2GHz 970fx is still too much of a power hog to be used in a powerbook. While the 1.4 GHz is better, who wants such a slow, single processor machine in 2004? Remeber the G5 is only about 20% faster than a same clock speed G4. In altivec, it's no faster at all. Looks like they'll have to move to a 65nm process before fast G5s get into powerbooks. Very sad for pro portable users.

Yet another troll joins in. Jokers.

rog
Jan 22, 2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
Yet another troll joins in. Jokers.

Oh yes, I'm such a troll for not jumping for joy and drooling over every extra MHz that IBM/Apple can give us. Not everybody on this forum blindly praises Apple for everything they do. Sorry, but I'm telling it like it is. While the G5 is a drastic improvement over the G4, it hasn't gotten any faster in 7 months, it's not in the portable or consumer lines, and it isn't contributing to growth of the platform. It also hasn't resulted in price cuts needed to grow market share. The news posted at the top of this thread is simply underwhelming. In the real world (please join it) Apple is competing with PCs, not all of which run on celerons and windoze, that are drastically cheaper and faster, and the vast majority of consumers barely know what an OS is or what the implications of one are, or why OSX is vastly superior to anything else. Get over yourself.

wizard
Jan 22, 2004, 10:17 AM
Instead of looking at IBM's average power numbers look at Apples maximum power numbers for the XServe. 25 whats is bad enough in a laptop but doubling that is a big issue.

The problem with the numbers is this; the people who would most like to use the 970 in a laptop are going to be the ones least likely to be able to sustain the desired peformance. As soon as demand on the processor goes up, and along with it wattage, you will see some sort of bus throttling. In the end you would get better results from an IBook.

Dave



Originally posted by stingerman
Though I don't know what Apple will do, technically the G5 is more than capable to go into a 1" PB, even the PB 12". Re-look at those W comparisons between the G4 and the G5. These numbers tell us that Apple has a lot to work with. They can easily put a 2GHz 970FX into a 15" and 17". They can probably bump the 12" to 1.6.

More than that, the FX will easily go to 3GHz+ if you compare it to the W that the P4, even the Prescott is planning to use (120W+!). I would even venture that 4GHz is not that far away for the PowerMacs. Apple really has a loaded gun here. What a turn of events. Maybe we will see Apple surpass Intel in GHz in addition to raw performance by the end of the year.

tace
Jan 22, 2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Samurai980
Well it is nice to see IBM try to improve things, but why still such a low amount of L1, L2, and L3 cache?

The Pentium 4 was soundily defeated by the AMD 64 FX-51 (L1:128k,L2:1MB) and then Intel released the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition which is just a P4 with L1: 8k, L2: 512K, and a L3: 2MB and then it soundily defeated the AMD 64.

Now the PowerPC 970 has a measily 32K L1 and a tiny 512K L2. Why doesn't IBM/Apple upgrade this tiny thing? I mean there would be a significant speed and performance boost as a result.

Another interesting difference is the transistor count of the three processors. P4EE is 178m, AMD64 is 106m, and Apple is 58m.

Aside from that, Apple needs to put out a true 64-bit OS.

You can't directly compare the number of transistors of the 3 chips considering one of them is a RISC and the other is CICS.

Also, 64 bit OS is all nice but it is a bit more involved than you might think to release such a thing out the door as a commercial product.

isgoed
Jan 22, 2004, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by jderman
Beef up the battery in the current unit and wallah,

Hi Mr. American,

This is pretty funny: It is NOT "wallah" . The correct spelling is "voilá". It is French.

(for post see page 1, one of the first posts)

signed,

Mr. European

wizard
Jan 22, 2004, 10:34 AM
You are not even warm here. Intels solution to their ALU design issues are a joke.

An ideal ALU would execute an instruction in a single cycle. Now granted not many processor do that anymore due to long pipe lines to get things done. In Intels case they have extremely long pipelines so double pumped ALU's give them nothing over the competition. In fact those long pipe lines could be considered a liability.

There is nothing cool about the P4, it was and is a processor designed to run at high clock rates for marketing purpose irregardless of the benefits of those high speeds. To think otherwise is to be a slave to the manipulation of the marketing droids.

Originally posted by tortoise
Errmm... Double pumped ALUs are bleeding edge technology, and increase the performance of the CPU at relatively little cost. Everyone could benefit from this technology. And it makes sense if you consider it; the ALU is simpler than some of the other pipelines, and if you can manage to drive it twice as hard as the other pipelines you have a nice performance improvement on your hands on the integer side with only marginally more chip complexity. It is a terrible stretch to call either the AMD64 seires or the 970 inefficient, especially the AMD64 which is a performance leader with respect to intel hardware running much faster.

Thanks
Dave


You make it sound like it is a bad thing, but it is actually a cool thing. Mind you, I don't think Intel's cores are all that efficient in many ways, but they have found a way to exploit a design inefficiency that currently exists in both the PPC970 and AMD64 CPUs. I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere that AMD was working on double-pumped ALUs, and they have no difficulty performing as well or better than the PPC970 clock for clock in their current incarnations.

Expect to see double-pumped ALUs in future AMD and IBM chips. It makes too much sense for them not to do it too.

isgoed
Jan 22, 2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
As far as W usage, all I can say is WOW. IBM has pulled off a technological miracle. According to Motorola's charts the 970FX dissipates as mush W at 2GHz as the G4 7447 at 1.3GHZ! Now we know that the G5 architecture is a lot more efficient heat and energy wise than the G4 architecture. And, the 970FX can evidently dynamically scale not only frequency but also voltage. The chart implies that the FX will dynamically scale from 1.4-2GHz and 1-1.3V.

This is really a huge advance. The only unknown is the ASIC Controller. But, we have to believe it has been refined to the 90NM process as well. This means that the 970FX will easily go into Apple's entire line of computers. This is what Steve Jobs probably meant when he said that the G5 was the MACs future at the last show. It is exactly what Apple needs to do and quickly!
Can i quote this post 20 times and just add "I agree" to it?

No, i will probably get banned.

Ok, then i just do it once.

I agree.

isgoed
Jan 22, 2004, 11:17 AM
As soon as a cheap 90nm G5 (iMac/eMac/Cube) is out, I buy it. I set the bus to 900mhz and overclock the processor to 2.7Ghz (3X). This machine will once and for all burn all those windows users of the face of the earth.

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by singletrack
The CPU isn't the only thing that draws a lot of power. A big system chip and fast RAM draws considerable power also. I recall Apple said the system chip in the G5 desktop was a big power drain also.

So it's nice the CPU size and power requirements have come down but that's only a part of the equation.

Yes, but you can bet that Apple hasn't been taking a sequential approach to this. That is to say, it's not a matter of 'okay, the chip is scaled down to a reasonable wattage, now let's work on the system controller.' I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Apple has been working on a PB compatible system controller for at least six months, if not more.

G5 PBs may not be quite so far away after all...

"There's somethin' movin' out here and it ain't us!"

"Hudson may be right..."

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Sol
...While I would not go so far as to predict G5 powerbooks in the next revision, I see no reason now why iMacs could not use these new processors...

I've heard others make the argument, and I think that I agree, that the iMac won't exceed the power of the PB. This would be clearly placing a consumer level machine at a more powerful level than a Pro level machine. Since the introduction of the iMac that's never been done. The PB's already on somewhat shaky ground with the iBook barking up its tail-pipe. I'm sure Apple is doing everything they can to get the PB updated as soon as possible, and the iMac would follow shortly there after.

Of course, this is all just a guess...

BenRoethig
Jan 22, 2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
I totally agree that this will give Apple a lot of flexibility in design. What I think we will see happen to the PowerMac G5 is that the main CPU compartment will shrink. Maybe only one Fan instead of two. This will allow the G5 to have two optical drives, 4 SATA HDs and an additional PCI-X slot.

It will also allow for the G5 to enter the consumer line in a big way with smaller and radical designs. That really is what the 20th Anniversary Mac needs to be about, the consumer line which needs the most help right now.

It would be nice. I like the speed and design of the G5, but I liked the functionality of the last generation G4s better. 2 Optical drives is a must.

Mac-Xpert
Jan 22, 2004, 12:04 PM
I do think that a g5 Powerbook will need to run at least at 1.6 ghz to make it a impressive update from the current 1.3 Ghz G4. As others have mentioned the G5 is not that much faster at the same clock speed as the G4. So a 1.4 Ghz G5 Powerbook would for sure disappoint people in it's performance.

But looking at Intels numbers on the centrino they might be able to come up with a 1.6 anyway. Maybe that rumored liquid cooling is ready to debut in the next Powerbook.

manu chao
Jan 22, 2004, 12:05 PM
Funny how everybody is quoting different numbers for apparently the same processor...

I don't claim to understand all this, but what about stating
- what model of the G4 (7455 or 7447/57)
- what process (180 or 130nm)
- what core voltage (1.1 or 1.3 or 1.6v) (not I/O voltage)
- whether it's typical or max consumption
- and maybe a source
when quoting any numbers?

Here are some numbers I found:

- 7447/7457, 130nm, 1.1v, typical (my interpretation), 1Ghz
--> 7.7 Watt
e-www.motorola.com/files/32bit/doc/app_note/AN2436.pdf

- dito for 1.3v, typical/max
--> 15.8/22 Watt
e-www.motorola.com/files/32bit/ doc/data_sheet/MPC7457EC.pdf

- 970FX, 90nm, 1.0v, typical, 1.4 Ghz
--> 12.3 Watt
(from the pdf which started this thread)

Whether Apple is using the 1.1v or 1.3v parts in their laptops, I don't know.

So far for the facts, now to the speculation. Voltage seems to matter a lot, as it was shown earlier in this thread, the Pentium M does not have a significantly lower power consumption at its top frequencies, but drops a lot when it scales down the frequency, which it does by reducing the voltage (at least partly). The 970 can also reduce the frequency but I have found no indication that it uses a reduced voltage for that. Therefore, it might not be as effective as the Pentium M in saving power when the processor idles.
Note that Intel uses the term 'Thermal design', and I have no idea whether that corresponds to typical or max, or something in between.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 22, 2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I've heard others make the argument, and I think that I agree, that the iMac won't exceed the power of the PB. This would be clearly placing a consumer level machine at a more powerful level than a Pro level machine. Since the introduction of the iMac that's never been done. The PB's already on somewhat shaky ground with the iBook barking up its tail-pipe. I'm sure Apple is doing everything they can to get the PB updated as soon as possible, and the iMac would follow shortly there after.

Of course, this is all just a guess... this is exactly why apple isnt growing marketshare, games being played between product lines. they need to stop this silly thing and market best product period. all they do when they play these games is hurt themself. put a top speed G5 into Imac and they wouldnt be able to keep up with sales. continue the game of cant do this because of that product and watch that market get smaller and smaller. this is what has happened the last 2 years.

Hattig
Jan 22, 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by nighthawk
Originally posted by csubear

Also, the data cache is only 32kb, the instruction cache uses a separate 64kb. The spec sheet for the P4 Extreme does not list a separate amount for instruction cache. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses of the x86 architecture -- it does not include a separate cache for instruction data. (Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the source of the data buffer overrun error that plagues PCs?)


x86 processors also have instruction caches. Athlon/Athlon64 has 64KB Instruction cache and 64KB data cache. P4 stores decoded instructions in a cache as well, around 8000 instructions worth on the P4, 12000 on later revisions. This saves having to do the decode stages again, which is a neat optimisation.


In addition, the P4 Extreme's L3 cache is running at 800mhz or 1/4 the speed of the processor. I could not locate the speed of the L1 and L2 for the P4e, but IBM explicitly states that both the L1 and L2 cache runs at the full processor speed. The data-sheet for the P4e does describe the two ALU (integer calcs) as running at "twice the core clock" which is 1600mhz for the P4e. This is also unlike the 970xx which runs at the full clock speed.


When the core clock of the P4 is 3.2GHz, that means that the ALU is running at 6.4GHz.

The P4 and the Athlon/Athlon64 both run their L1 and L2 caches at core speed. The P4 also has very low latency for its caches. Intel is renowned for its cache design.

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by jderman
Guys,

It's not gonna happen tomorrow, or even day after tomorrow, but it will happen soon. They got over the big heat/power hurdel....
It's coming

Has it occurred to you that they got over that hurdle a while ago? Long enough ago that they've had time to redesign both the mother board and the case of the Xserve? What else have they had time to work on in that time frame?

Hattig
Jan 22, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by nighthawk
Of course, this means that the 970 has a L3 cache up to 8GB running at the "same" speed as the P4 Extreme 2MB cache.

I think you need to read up on these things a lot more! That is totally incorrect.

For a start, the L3 cache on the P4EE will be extremely low latency, especially compared to normal memory. It will also be very wide - 256-bits most likely. That will increase its bandwidth.

And then the P4 has an 800MTps bus at 64-bits, i.e., 6.4GB/s total bandwidth. That pairs nicely with dual channel PC3200 memory.

The 970 has a 1GHz (at 2GHz core speed) bus at 32-bits in each direction, so it has a little more bandwidth than the P4 in total. However the P4 may have better prefetching hardware or any of the myriad other things that also affect these things, so you cannot draw a total conclusion just from bandwidth alone.

Athlon64/Opteron is the most optimal solution, with on-die memory controllers. That means that it connects to the memory controller at core clock speed (2.2GHz). I/O to the system or other processors is 800MHz DDR (1600MTps) at 16-bits in each direction as well.

Samurai980
Jan 22, 2004, 12:38 PM
Well all interesting reading. Personally I hope that IBM will be able to put out a processor that blows the Wintel world out in both theoretical performance and real performance in applications used today.

So when do the Quad 10GHz 980s, w/ 80GB of RAM, 2TB HD, ATI R420 Vid Card, that is liquid cooled and comes at the price of $500 come out? I need a G5 bad.

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by rog
Well this is disappointing news. 7 months later and only 10% faster. Uh oh.

Uh, where do you get the 10% from? Is that just from the 1.1GHz bus speed? But we already know that the processor speed can be more than just a 2x factor of the bus. Suppose it's a 3x of a 800MHz bus. Oops, that's only a 20% increase. So, what if it's 3x of a 900MHz bus? Well, shucks, that's only a 35% increase. Well, maybe it'll actually be a 3x of a 1.1GHz bus. Then that would be 3.3GHz processor. Would that be enough to get you excited?

Also, the 2GHz 970fx is still too much of a power hog to be used in a powerbook. While the 1.4 GHz is better, who wants such a slow, single processor machine in 2004? Remeber the G5 is only about 20% faster than a same clock speed G4.

Oh, so a 20% boost in performance is worthless. Hmm. And how does the difference in performance from the FSB figure in? Surely that would increase the performance of the PBs.

Looks like they'll have to move to a 65nm process before fast G5s get into powerbooks. Very sad for pro portable users.

Oh, give me a break. 65nm is far enough away that it certainly won't be the next step. There will be a G5 PB on the 90nm process, whether it's with the 970FX or another update to the G5 (perhaps the G5m?) remains to be seen.

tortoise
Jan 22, 2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
Another factor affecting performance is bandwidth and the G5 architecture has greater bandwidth. So when you are dealing with larger data sets, latency is a much smaller component of the performance equation.


No. Bandwidth is only more important than latency if you have a small number of very large objects in memory. If you have a larger number of smaller objects, the bandwidth is the same but latency dominates real throughput. For multimedia apps this is fine, as their memory usage tends to be dominated by large block transfers. For many high performance computing applications though, latency is the predominant scaling bottleneck.


Originally posted by stingerman
So to simply speak of latency as the driver behind performance is misleading. I believe that the G5 has the best balance of Latency, Bandwidth and bus frequency for an overall faster system. Couple that with IBM's advanced look ahead algorithms and it isn't an issue at all.


Most real-world supercomputing benchmarks (and I am not talking about the nigh useless LINPACK here) show that the mediocre memory latency of the PPC970 is its Achille's Heel. It has lots of bandwidth, but the latency is too high to let you use it all effectively. You say it isn't an issue at all, but impressively low latency is why the Opteron outperforms the G5 for more generic high-performance computing at the same clock speed. Clearly this will be an issue for some people.

If you are using your G5 for multimedia and such, it will be as fast as anything out there. Hell, it is almost perfectly tuned for that application. If you are working on very large datasets that have loads of non-sequential memory accesses (and many application spaces do) or more general high performance computing applications, it will be a less stellar performer. Since the focus of Apple tends to be on multimedia, the G5 works out very well for them. If you need high performance for other purposes though, it may not be the best choice.

SiliconAddict
Jan 22, 2004, 01:25 PM
OK. People are looking the XServer 2Ghz CPU to get a feel for what might be in a PowerBook. What I have to ask is what additional optimizations could IBM do to the G5 to make it more laptop friendly. The afore mentioned Pentium M shuts down entire sections of the CPU when not in use. I have to question if IBM and Apple may be working on such a thing for the G5. Lets face facts people. Two hours is pathetic for a laptop. I have to imagine Apple doesn’t want to fall anywhere under that time frame. (IMHO 2.5 hours should be minimum.) So lets say initial test batches of the 90nm chips were being produced late last fall/winter. Would it be conceivable that the end of year timeframe for a G5 PowerBook that Jobs alluded to last fall could be because of such optimizations?
Unfortunately my knowledge on the architecture of the G5 could fit on the head of an atom so I don’t know squat as to how much effort it would take to reengineer the G5 for notebooks. Is a year not enough time?

acj
Jan 22, 2004, 01:42 PM
No one has mentioned that the junction temp range is significantly higher. That is great for notebook uses. It means it can run stable at higher temps, requireing smaller heatsinks, fans, etc.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
No. Bandwidth is only more important than latency if you have a small number of very large objects in memory.

Most real-world supercomputing benchmarks (and I am not talking about the nigh useless LINPACK here) show that the mediocre memory latency of the PPC970 is its Achille's Heel. It has lots of bandwidth, but the latency is too high to let you use it all effectively. You say it isn't an issue at all, but impressively low latency is why the Opteron outperforms the G5 for more generic high-performance computing at the same clock speed. Clearly this will be an issue for some people.

If you are using your G5 for multimedia and such, it will be as fast as anything out there. Hell, it is almost perfectly tuned for that application.

Hello, anyone home? You are just regurgitating my posts now and adding more troll crap.

In the real world the Big Mac Supercluster is the fastest supercomputer among all other off the shelf clusters. Including your superfast latency crap. What a troll... You have no idea how foolish your posts read.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Two hours is pathetic for a laptop.

Consumer Reports had the latest PowerBook G4 at the longest lasting battery life of 4.5 hours. The 970FX is looking like it will use even less power.

As far as the 970FX PowerTune, it is looking like it has the following features:

1- Dynamic frequency based on usage and temperature (This is more efficient than Stepping.)

2- Dynamic Voltage based on current frequency. This provides a 4Times decrease in power usage and heat generation in addition to the linear decrease as a result of the frequency decrease.

3- Dynamically sleeping regions of the processor that are not in use.

4- Voltage Islands that allow for sections of the processor to use a lower voltage than other sections. (A technique born out of IBM's SOC work.)

5- eFuse, which allows IBM to switch between redundant portions of their processor in case a critical section fails. (Increases yield and life of the processor.)

idkew
Jan 22, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by isgoed
Hi Mr. American,

The correct spelling is "voilá". It is French.

signed,

Mr. European

I thought that was a musical instrument? ;)

pjkelnhofer
Jan 22, 2004, 02:13 PM
Amongst, all the dicussion of the 970FX, I wondered if anyone else noticed that the IBM Reference Guide contained no mention of the 750VX Chip. Which it seemed like a lot of people in here expected to be the chip in the next generation of iBooks and eMacs.

Anyone know what happened to it?

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
...could fit on the head of an atom...

Uh, atoms don't have heads... ;)

Originally posted by idkew
I thought that was a musical instrument? ;)

And, that's a viola... ;) :D

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Amongst, all the dicussion of the 970FX, I wondered if anyone else noticed that the IBM Reference Guide contained no mention of the 750VX Chip. Which it seemed like a lot of people in here expected to be the chip in the next generation of iBooks and eMacs.

Anyone know what happened to it?

I don't know what happened to it, but I might point out that IBM only put out an announcement about the 970FX after the first Apple product using it was released (the Xserve). So, the 750VX may still be out there, just not being spoken of until it is released in the iMac/eMac/iBook line.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Amongst, all the dicussion of the 970FX, I wondered if anyone else noticed that the IBM Reference Guide contained no mention of the 750VX Chip. Which it seemed like a lot of people in here expected to be the chip in the next generation of iBooks and eMacs.

Anyone know what happened to it?

Steve Jobs stated that the G5 was the future of the Mac at the SF MacWorld. I think it would be smart to just use G5's across the board. This will greatly simplify optimizing the code for each platform and will allow Apple to get much better scaling and purchasing power. The diferentiator for the various lines seems to be more whether it is dual or single, how expandable is it, other components, etc.

I hope they go for G5 across the board.

idkew
Jan 22, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
And, that's a viola... ;) :D

i hope you realize that was a sarcastic comment.

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by idkew
i hope you realize that was a sarcastic comment.

Of course I did. I was just having some fun!
:eek: :D ;)

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by manu chao
- 970FX, 90nm, 1.0v, typical, 1.4 Ghz
--> 12.3 Watt

Actually the 1.4 Ghz part appears to be running at 1.1v. If you do the math, extrapolating the 1.4Ghz part at 1v gives you a number about 20% too high (if you extrapolate 2 Ghz @ 1.3v) or low (if you extrapolate 1.4 Ghz @ 1v). As to what frequency you get when running at 1v, there doesn't appear to be any indication from the document that started this thread, but likely that is related to the speed ramping that the chip does (and which the original 970 could do too - that's how the current PMG5 does it's speed scaling).

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Amongst, all the dicussion of the 970FX, I wondered if anyone else noticed that the IBM Reference Guide contained no mention of the 750VX Chip. Which it seemed like a lot of people in here expected to be the chip in the next generation of iBooks and eMacs.

Anyone know what happened to it?

It was a rumor :) . IBM never announced such a beast, and if you do a search on IBM's site, you will (oddly, as I didn't expect this) find only one link that leads to an AppleInsider article on it. Look for yourself. (http://www.google.com/search?q=750VX+site:ibm.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Personally I always thought that the 750VX was a silly rumor - why spread your efforts on two products when you can get more out of those efforts on one product?

jettredmont
Jan 22, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by manu chao
Note that Intel uses the term 'Thermal design', and I have no idea whether that corresponds to typical or max, or something in between.

"Thermal Design" is the typical power consumption/heat dissipation figure, not the Max. The notes on that PDF state this.

Chryx
Jan 22, 2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by nighthawk
Originally posted by csubear

Also, the data cache is only 32kb, the instruction cache uses a separate 64kb. The spec sheet for the P4 Extreme does not list a separate amount for instruction cache. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses of the x86 architecture -- it does not include a separate cache for instruction data.


Nope, the P4 has a 'trace cache' when it stores post CISC>RISC translated code, this takes the place of an L1 instruction cache.

it's around 21KB, but Intel haven't released an exact number.

And 'no seperate caches for instructions' is most definately NOT an "x86 weakness", the Athlon (XP/64/FX etc) have 64KB to instructions and 64KB to data at the L1 level.

What you aren't accounting for, is that caches are as much about the actual latency of the cache as they are the the size, the P4 needs low latency caches to keep the pipeline fed, so it has very small, very fast caching, the Athlon and the 970 both have less extreme pipelines and don't need the same extreme latency, so they have more cache.

As for why they have the amounts they have, both AMD and IBM will have run typical code mix simulations to work out the best balance of cache size, cache latency and die area required.

Chryx
Jan 22, 2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
<snip>


Would you care to explain why the G5 is so devastatingly quick for scientific tasks like fluid dynamics then?

pjkelnhofer
Jan 22, 2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
It was a rumor :) . IBM never announced such a beast, and if you do a search on IBM's site, you will (oddly, as I didn't expect this) find only one link that leads to an AppleInsider article on it. Look for yourself. (http://www.google.com/search?q=750VX+site:ibm.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

Personally I always thought that the 750VX was a silly rumor - why spread your efforts on two products when you can get more out of those efforts on one product?

Thanks, I guess I never saw the original thread, I just kept seeing the "750VX" talked about in iBook forums. I had assumed it was a real chip. Maybe it will be, but not any time soon, I would guess.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Chryx
Originally posted by tortoise
<snip>


Would you care to explain why the G5 is so devastatingly quick for scientific tasks like fluid dynamics then?

He's a troll or just completely out of his league.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Thanks, I guess I never saw the original thread, I just kept seeing the "750VX" talked about in iBook forums. I had assumed it was a real chip. Maybe it will be, but not any time soon, I would guess.

I can see Apple developing a Mac on a chip by taking advantage of of IBM's advanced SOC design tools. They can take a 750 ALU core, add on a 970 type FP2 unit, a VMX Altivex unit, then put in the memory controller, the device controllers, the GPU and communications parts all on one chip. It would allow Apple to make for a 1/2" notebook and maybe a full blown OS X handheld.

The important thing about the Apple/IBM relationship is that Apple's designers have a lot more tools at their disposal and a lot less limitations. It will be interesting what comes out of their R&D using IBM's capabilities.

Chryx
Jan 22, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
The P-M is actually a modified old P-III.


I don't think it is, Intel have been keeping fairly quiet about its design, but it doesn't seem to be directly based on the P3 from what I can gather.

it more closely resembles the P3 than it does the P4, but then, the Athlon more closely resembles the P3 rather than the P4 as well.


Whatever it is though, IMO it's the best design to come out of Intel in a VERY long time.

jettredmont
Jan 22, 2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by rog
Oh yes, I'm such a troll for not jumping for joy and drooling over every extra MHz that IBM/Apple can give us. Not everybody on this forum blindly praises Apple for everything they do. Sorry, but I'm telling it like it is. While the G5 is a drastic improvement over the G4, it hasn't gotten any faster in 7 months, it's not in the portable or consumer lines, and it isn't contributing to growth of the platform. It also hasn't resulted in price cuts needed to grow market share. The news posted at the top of this thread is simply underwhelming. In the real world (please join it) Apple is competing with PCs, not all of which run on celerons and windoze, that are drastically cheaper and faster, and the vast majority of consumers barely know what an OS is or what the implications of one are, or why OSX is vastly superior to anything else. Get over yourself.

1) There was no mention of speed increases here. The change is a change in process size from 130nm to 90nm.

2) Apple does not (ever) continually release upgraded spec machines. It is not akin to the Wintel world in this respect. There will be no speed bump until the day that speed bump is announce. As such, seven months with 0% speed increase is normal and expected. Wait until the speed bump. Then, if it's really only 10% (to 2.2GHz) then you can complain.

3) Apple has said it will achieve 3GHz shipping by the end of this summer. Steve Jobs doesn't like being wrong. I doubt he would make such a claim were he not 90% positive that it would happen. That's a 50% increase in one year, which is quite respectable.

4) Many more consumers know the difference between OSX and Windows than know the difference between a Celeron and a G4. Granted, they may not know *all* the differences, but they sure as hell can point out that the OSX screen looks just a little bit different from the Windows XP Teletubbies Desktop!

PPCTech
Jan 22, 2004, 03:39 PM
Nighthawk:

The PPC 970 does not support L3 cache, nor does it have any because it relies on a fast system bus. Unlike its big brother the Power4 which uses huge amounts of L3 cache.

-PPCTech

PPCTech
Jan 22, 2004, 03:50 PM
Chryx:

The Pentium-M *IS* based on the Pentium 3 core. (which was based on the Pentium 2, which was based on the Pentium Pro). The Intel Israeli design team actually took the P3 core and modified it for this design, and the pipeline on the Pentium-M is longer than the P3, allowing for frequency scaling, but shorter than the P4 which is an energy hungry CPU design. Banias, the codename for the Pentium-M CPU will be phased out within the next two quarters, and Dothan, the successor to Banias will appear. It will have 2MB of L2 cache, and scale up to fairly well in frequency.

-PPCTech

SiliconAddict
Jan 22, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Uh, atoms don't have heads... ;)



And, that's a viola... ;) :D

Isn't an atom a head? :p

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Chryx
I don't think it is, Intel have been keeping fairly quiet about its design, but it doesn't seem to be directly based on the P3 from what I can gather.

it more closely resembles the P3 than it does the P4, but then, the Athlon more closely resembles the P3 rather than the P4 as well.


Whatever it is though, IMO it's the best design to come out of Intel in a VERY long time.

We'd like to think so , but it is nothing more than a P-3 slightly enhanced and at a 130NM process. The P-3 is still a nice processor and whips the P4 on mhz to mhz basis. The P-M was Intel's response to the awesome reception the G4 notebooks received. You couldn't fit a P4-M into a 1" notebook, they are still predominately in the large bricks. The P3 now P-M had a much longer life for the notebook market.

uberman42
Jan 22, 2004, 04:00 PM
All we need is just a little patience. I say new PB G5s at Macworld Tokyo in March. Makes good timing after IBMs processor forum in Feb that whets our appetites even moreso.:cool:

Chryx
Jan 22, 2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by PPCTech
Chryx:

The Pentium-M *IS* based on the Pentium 3 core. (which was based on the Pentium 2, which was based on the Pentium Pro). The Intel Israeli design team actually took the P3 core and modified it for this design, and the pipeline on the Pentium-M is longer than the P3, allowing for frequency scaling, but shorter than the P4 which is an energy hungry CPU design. Banias, the codename for the Pentium-M CPU will be phased out within the next two quarters, and Dothan, the successor to Banias will appear. It will have 2MB of L2 cache, and scale up to fairly well in frequency.

-PPCTech

1) I'm familiar with Intel Codenames for these things
2) I've not seen any actual _evidence_ that Banias/Dothan are of Tualatin/Coppermine/Katmai/Deutchetes /Klamath etc etc lineage, conjecturally it seems plausible, but I remain skeptical.

I'll get in touch with an ex-Intel buddy and see if he can make some enquiries on this.


BTW, Dothan appears to be running hot thanks to Intels leaky 90nm process

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by PPCTech
Chryx:

The Pentium-M *IS* based on the Pentium 3 core. (which was based on the Pentium 2, which was based on the Pentium Pro). The Intel Israeli design team actually took the P3 core and modified it for this design, and the pipeline on the Pentium-M is longer than the P3, allowing for frequency scaling, but shorter than the P4 which is an energy hungry CPU design. Banias, the codename for the Pentium-M CPU will be phased out within the next two quarters, and Dothan, the successor to Banias will appear. It will have 2MB of L2 cache, and scale up to fairly well in frequency.

-PPCTech

You are correct sir, but take a look at how quickly the P-M is moving up in W and heat. Add 2MB to the L2 Cache and boom, voltage goes up, heat accelerates. A deeper pipeline means more energy and heat and an overall slow down. The P-M is more an admission that the P4 is already close to the end of its lifecycle, imho. I think Intel has to have something else up there sleeve. Unless, of course, it was the Itanium-2 which has proved to be a dismal failure for them. You would think such a large firm would have a few projects going as contingencies.

I would hate to see Intel caught with their pants down, I would like to see the pressure continue on IBM to race ahead of Intel. The worse thing that can happen to a company is that they become #1.

Chryx
Jan 22, 2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
Add 2MB to the L2 Cache and boom, voltage goes up, heat accelerates.

Dothan is on .09, Banias is on .13


the problem with Dothan appears to be leakage (which is also affecting Prescott)

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Chryx
1) I'm familiar with Intel Codenames for these things
2) I've not seen any actual _evidence_ that Banias/Dothan are of Tualatin/Coppermine/Katmai/Deutchetes /Klamath etc etc lineage, conjecturally it seems plausible, but I remain skeptical.

I'll get in touch with an ex-Intel buddy and see if he can make some enquiries on this.


BTW, Dothan appears to be running hot thanks to Intels leaky 90nm process

Yep, Intel is really struggling with their 90NM process. Can IBM be that far ahead? It really is something to ponder. Will Apple be able not only to leapfrog Intel based computers performance wise but also catch up and maybe even surpass Intel on the MHz marketing front? Intel's seems to be closing really fast. Very interesting change of events.

It would be like SJ to shock us all. These W and heat numbers suggest that Apple is ready to go to 3GHz really soon, much sooner than Summer.

tortoise
Jan 22, 2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Chryx
Would you care to explain why the G5 is so devastatingly quick for scientific tasks like fluid dynamics then?


Because that falls within the range of applications for which the PPC970 architecture is well suited, perhaps? Ignoring that "devastatingly quick" isn't saying much (perhaps you should look at some CFD benchmarks for various current systems some time).

There are a lot of people here pulling numbers out of /dev/ass and making claims about all the architectures that are unfounded in reality. I work on high-performance computing systems for a living. We have a bunch of both G5 systems and Opteron systems here, and we've benchmarked both on gobs of different types of supercomputing codes (our application space makes broad use of the capabilities of the architectures, but is all large memory codes).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The PPC970 is tops for DSP type codes, particularly if you are running tight, compute intensive loops. If you are running more general purpose or latency bound applications, the Opteron is the clear winner most of the time. Subscribe to one of the many mailing lists dedicated to commodity supercomputing on the 'net; you'll find lots of independent tests at various R&D labs that confirm this.

It reminds me of the G4 Photoshop "benchmark"; such a ridiculously narrow algorithm space that it proves nothing in the general case. See what happens when you smoke Apple marketing copy?

tortoise
Jan 22, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
He's a troll or just completely out of his league.


I work on supercomputing codes for a living and have a bunch of Opteron and PPC970 systems here, plus some more esoteric hardware.

And your experience and qualifications are...?

Sun Baked
Jan 22, 2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The PPC970 is tops for DSP type codes, particularly if you are running tight, compute intensive loops. If you are running more general purpose or latency bound applications, the Opteron is the clear winner most of the time. Subscribe to one of the many mailing lists dedicated to commodity supercomputing on the 'net; you'll find lots of independent tests at various R&D labs that confirm this.

It reminds me of the G4 Photoshop "benchmark"; such a ridiculously narrow algorithm space that it proves nothing in the general case. See what happens when you smoke Apple marketing copy? :p

Amazing how many people still rely on benchmarking and marketing hype rather than the real world users and word of mouth.

Sort of like the people who go out and buy the high HP vehicle based on race track tests, then complain that their lightly used vehicle they bought is a gutless lemon in city driving.

Of couse then the mechanic takes the Mustang Cobra out for a high RPM blast throught the streets, talks about it on the net, and then gets fired. ;)

All depends on whether your typical use is similar to the tests or not.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by tortoise
I work on supercomputing codes for a living and have a bunch of Opteron and PPC970 systems here, plus some more esoteric hardware.

And your experience and qualifications are...?

That's funny, it seems that you are better qualified to be a professional troll. If you need a reference for your new trolling position, I would be happy to write one for you.

Maybe you should write NASA and tell them about this huge mistake they are making:

http://www.macnn.com/news/23089

splashman
Jan 22, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by mkaake
me, i'm just happy ;)

i figure, these are going to show up in some product, be it a cube, laptop, or desktop... which means refurbs, old machines and used machines suddenly get cheaper :)

call me cheap (or poor - that would be more accurate), but i love it when new products come out so i can get what everyone used to think was great at a good price...

matt

I'll call you "smart", because you think like I do! :)

wizard
Jan 22, 2004, 04:59 PM
Actually I'm begining to think that Aple may just bypass the VX chip in favor of the 970 in all desk top systems. Lets face it al they need is a lower power system controller (SC) to stick this chip into just about all of the current models. A lower power SC should be easy to botain by eliminating SMP support and maybe reducing or chaning the attached I/O buses.

This would leave the iBook as the only place to stick the VX.

It would be a bit of a marketing trumph to have a entire line of 64 bit desktops. From the engineering side extending the address space is the primary advanatge of the 970 in the low end machines.

Dave



Originally posted by Snowy_River
I don't know what happened to it, but I might point out that IBM only put out an announcement about the 970FX after the first Apple product using it was released (the Xserve). So, the 750VX may still be out there, just not being spoken of until it is released in the iMac/eMac/iBook line.

MCCFR
Jan 22, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I've heard others make the argument, and I think that I agree, that the iMac won't exceed the power of the PB. This would be clearly placing a consumer level machine at a more powerful level than a Pro level machine. Since the introduction of the iMac that's never been done. The PB's already on somewhat shaky ground with the iBook barking up its tail-pipe. I'm sure Apple is doing everything they can to get the PB updated as soon as possible, and the iMac would follow shortly there after.

Of course, this is all just a guess...

In my Mr. Miyagi voice I would say…

"The past is an excellent way of recording your mistakes so as not to repeat them, however it is lousy as an absolute guide for what will happen in the future."

In my less Zen-like personality, I would argue that a 1.6-1.8 GHz 'modular' Macintosh (with a 3:1/4:1 FSB), providing a common base for the new iMac - which I refer to as 3rd Generation iMac (or 3GiM, for short) - and a new 'Cube'-like business Mac is precisely what Apple needs to answer the critics who claim that a) the 2GiM is getting stale [true] and that b) Apple has no headless offering for the business community, who are up to their eyes in cheap flat-panels and CRTs but fed up of managing their way through Windows Update hell [also true].

Due to SPJ's Barnum-like personality, 2004 is going to see more new and revised product announcements than any other Macintosh year since the early 90s, and the whole IIvx/si/LC/Performa product matrix fiasco.

Unlike the 90s however, I suspect that each product will be carefully placed with laser-like accuracy and in a manner designed to disrupt the competition (a la iPod and iTMS), as well as the market and media perception of Apple as a company.

wizard
Jan 22, 2004, 05:16 PM
Somebody ought to forward this message ot Steve J at Apple. There simple is no good excuse for the way that the imac line has been marketed, they really need to reconsider their attitude with respect to performance of these machines.

I've always like the concept of an all in one, they certainly are great for some applications but lets face it they need to perform. The G5 tower should be where Apple addreesses the professional crowds with SMP and expandability, and the dropped the ball on expandability there. I have to caution though that SMP is quickly becoming an expectation of many hardware purchasers so that will eventually work its way into the all in one line also.

What is really needed in the iMac line is two PC's with significant performance differrences between them. Give the user the option of a truely low cost iMac or something middle of the road. Thus maybe one imac with a 1.8GHz 970 and another with a 2.4GHz procesor. Finally they need to put real memory in these machines.

Thanks
Dave




Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
this is exactly why apple isnt growing marketshare, games being played between product lines. they need to stop this silly thing and market best product period. all they do when they play these games is hurt themself. put a top speed G5 into Imac and they wouldnt be able to keep up with sales. continue the game of cant do this because of that product and watch that market get smaller and smaller. this is what has happened the last 2 years.

SiliconAddict
Jan 22, 2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
Consumer Reports had the latest PowerBook G4 at the longest lasting battery life of 4.5 hours. The 970FX is looking like it will use even less power.


I don't know what criteria Consumer Reports uses but from www.computers.com

he new 15-inch PowerBook lasted little more than a disappointing two hours in our DVD battery test--about 20 minutes less than the older 1GHz 15-inch PowerBook, which had a 61WHr battery (compared to the new system's 46WHr battery). The smaller battery combined with the higher speed processor means that you'll have less time for watching DVDs with the Apple's latest 15-inch PowerBook.

To drain the battery of an Apple notebook, CNET Labs plays a DVD movie in full-screen mode with the sound on.

I don't think I've seen a single Pentium M that gets under 3 hours of battery life even under harsh conditions like that. I know that the new IBM T40 series that we have just started rolling out here in the office gets at least 3+ hours while playing a movie.

nek
Jan 22, 2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by me_17213
the MIPS on te older 970 is alot higher than the FX version, I'm wondering wh the diffference would be so much.

970 1.8 7584 MIPS

970FX 2.0 5800 MIPS

Anybody care to fill me in?

IBM has now fixed that error, the actual results are:

970 1.8 5800 MIPS

970FX 2.0 7584 MIPS

That seems like a pretty big jump for only 200MHz increase, but I know nothing of Dhrystone, so maybe its not.

the new PDF updated today is:
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/7874C7DA8607C0B287256BF3006FBE54/$file/PPC_QRG_1-22-04.pdf

jderman
Jan 22, 2004, 06:27 PM
Mr. European

why don't we go out for some wine and cheese sometime. ;)

Then you can explain to me what relevance my spelling error has to do with this thread. Perdonemouix (pretty sure that ones wrong too).

rdowns
Jan 22, 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
this is exactly why apple isnt growing marketshare, games being played between product lines. they need to stop this silly thing and market best product period. all they do when they play these games is hurt themself. put a top speed G5 into Imac and they wouldnt be able to keep up with sales. continue the game of cant do this because of that product and watch that market get smaller and smaller. this is what has happened the last 2 years.

I couldn't agree more. It's what I coined as "Apple's head up their ass marketing".

Snowy_River
Jan 22, 2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by jderman
... Perdonemouix (pretty sure that ones wrong too).

Uh... yeah... I think you meant 'pardonez-moi'... :D ;)

BenRoethig
Jan 22, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
I couldn't agree more. It's what I coined as "Apple's head up their ass marketing".

That and Apple lives in the high end of the computer market. They do not have a consumer tower.

billyboy
Jan 22, 2004, 07:44 PM
The forum is where you come to find out what is happening in the future, and it is very exciting to see how quickly IBM are moving ahead, no doubt motivated by the $3bn price tag hanging over their heads as they work away merrily in their factory.

Here in the closer present, Apple sold fewer PowerMac G5s than last quarter, and sold about 190,000 Powerbooks, which was up on the previous quarter. The current G4 has some legs in it still, and despite the duff PB specs in the eyes of many here, the PBs are doing very well in the notebook market place,. Whilst Im not saying a G5 Powerbook wont be on the horizon, the PowerMac is the main concern and must surely be the likely recipient of the latest greatest chips.

splashman
Jan 22, 2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me

this is exactly why apple isnt growing marketshare, games being played between product lines. they need to stop this silly thing and market best product period. all they do when they play these games is hurt themself. put a top speed G5 into Imac and they wouldnt be able to keep up with sales. continue the game of cant do this because of that product and watch that market get smaller and smaller. this is what has happened the last 2 years.

Originally posted by rdowns
I couldn't agree more. It's what I coined as "Apple's head up their ass marketing".

Speaking of heads up the anal orifice, would you like to enlighten the rest of us as to how Apple's tiered product line differs from any other company in existence? Dell doesn't sell just one product -- they offer a choice, depending on the buyer's budget and needs. This is basic marketing, kiddies: your product line should segregate the market into those who want to pay more, and those who want to pay less.

So here's the deal: If you want the best, and can pay for it, get a G5. If you don't, or can't, get an iMac or eMac. If you can't afford either of those, buy a Dell, or build your own. Apple (and SJ) have stated over and over and over that they're not trying to sell commoditized boxes. They simply aren't interested. So get over it.

Look, you can disagree with Apple's strategy all you want, but to accuse them of "playing games" or being idiots is nothing more than a childish cheap shot.

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
Here in the closer present, Apple sold fewer PowerMac G5s than last quarter .... Whilst Im not saying a G5 Powerbook wont be on the horizon, the PowerMac is the main concern and must surely be the likely recipient of the latest greatest chips.

As you as you realize that it was inevitable that Apple would sell fewer PowerMac G5s last quarter than the previous one - no one in the know buys before a MacWorld, and with 60K+ viewers tuning in, you can bet that all of them waiting to see if a new PowerMac would be released would make a dent in sales. At least here we notice that that really means that they are destined for the new upgrade, whereas analysts seem to keep their head up their butts and not realize that it isn't actually a major issue :D

Rincewind42
Jan 22, 2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by BenRoethig
That and Apple lives in the high end of the computer market. They do not have a consumer tower.

And given that most consumers do nothing but attempt to hide those towers under a desk, never actually USING the space that they give you, this shouldn't be regarded as a surprise.

If I were in the consumer market, I'd certainly choose a machine with the iMac form factor over a tower any day - it takes up less space and keeps all the functionality in a place where I can access it easily. A tower is either hidden under, or taking up even more space on my desk without providing any real benefit.

ffakr
Jan 22, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
He's a troll or just completely out of his league.

Where exactly is the trolling?
They guy comes in here and says 'I've looked at Opteron and 970 (in G5) and the Opteron is better for my work.. yet the G5 is better at multimedia'

Does any one here argue with the fact that the Opteron's on die memory controller has less latency than systems that still use a Northbridge? The guys code lives and dies on memory access. Opteron has an advantage. That's not a trol, it's life.

The 970 has a higher theoretical IPC, it has lots of bandwidth, but it isn't the fastest processor for every task under the sun. Opteron/Athlon64 is an excellent cpu. My next machine will be a G5 (not an upgrade to my Athlon) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want an Athlon64 also. :-)

As for Big Mac... It's a cluster. It is a relatively loosely coupled machine (even though infiniband is pretty damn fast). It's going to run the code that people bench clusters with very fast... code that runs parallel well... calculations that can be broken into discrete 'chunks'. From what Tortoise is saying, The G5 would indeed work fabulous for calculations where you are more concerned about parallelism than the ability of every CPU to access memory as fast as possible. If you are that memory bound, you will probably have issues with achieving enough parallelism anyway.

Tortoise, I'm curious.. are you benching the individual systems? Like a dual Opteron vs. a dual G5.. where you are dealing with a shared memory pool for the processors? Or do you see a significant advantage in clusters where each node only has a memory advantage to their local memory pools?

just curious.
Ffakr.

stingerman
Jan 22, 2004, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
Where exactly is the trolling?
They guy comes in here and says 'I've looked at Opteron and 970 (in G5) and the Opteron is better for my work.. yet the G5 is better at multimedia'

Does any one here argue with the fact that the Opteron's on die memory controller has less latency than systems that still use a Northbridge? The guys code lives and dies on memory access. Opteron has an advantage. That's not a trol, it's life.

The 970 has a higher theoretical IPC, it has lots of bandwidth, but it isn't the fastest processor for every task under the sun. Opteron/Athlon64 is an excellent cpu. My next machine will be a G5 (not an upgrade to my Athlon) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want an Athlon64 also. :-)

As for Big Mac... It's a cluster. It is a relatively loosely coupled machine (even though infiniband is pretty damn fast). It's going to run the code that people bench clusters with very fast... code that runs parallel well... calculations that can be broken into discrete 'chunks'. From what Tortoise is saying, The G5 would indeed work fabulous for calculations where you are more concerned about parallelism than the ability of every CPU to access memory as fast as possible. If you are that memory bound, you will probably have issues with achieving enough parallelism anyway.

Tortoise, I'm curious.. are you benching the individual systems? Like a dual Opteron vs. a dual G5.. where you are dealing with a shared memory pool for the processors? Or do you see a significant advantage in clusters where each node only has a memory advantage to their local memory pools?

just curious.
Ffakr.

You need to read the whole discussion Ffakr. Everyone understands latency here and the issues involved with performance. But, he is trolling, making more of an issue over it than it deserves and ignoring mitigating factors.

ionas
Jan 23, 2004, 02:21 AM
ibm pdf link in mac rumors article not found

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/7874C7DA8607C0B287256BF3006FBE54/$file/PPC_QRG_01-21-04.pdf

ionas
Jan 23, 2004, 02:27 AM
it seems to be faster too... look at the mips:

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/7874C7DA8607C0B287256BF3006FBE54

can one explain?

rdowns
Jan 23, 2004, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by splashman
Speaking of heads up the anal orifice, would you like to enlighten the rest of us as to how Apple's tiered product line differs from any other company in existence? Dell doesn't sell just one product -- they offer a choice, depending on the buyer's budget and needs. This is basic marketing, kiddies: your product line should segregate the market into those who want to pay more, and those who want to pay less.

So here's the deal: If you want the best, and can pay for it, get a G5. If you don't, or can't, get an iMac or eMac. If you can't afford either of those, buy a Dell, or build your own. Apple (and SJ) have stated over and over and over that they're not trying to sell commoditized boxes. They simply aren't interested. So get over it.

Look, you can disagree with Apple's strategy all you want, but to accuse them of "playing games" or being idiots is nothing more than a childish cheap shot.

I can afford any Mac I want. What I want is a G5 iMac. The PM is too big a beast and I'm not thrilled with the look.

Apple's always seems to bastardize models to protect others in the lineup. Bad move because it hurts sales. The consensus is that the iMac shouldn't have a G5 because the "pro" line has it. ************. There is plenty of differentiation between the PM and iMac if they had the same chip. Dual processors, RAM expandability, video, Firewire 800, expansion slots to name a few.

There is nothing wrong with a tiered market approach. My problem is with holding products back to protect others. Let's not forget the original iMac, same chip as the "pro" line and it saved Apple. A G5 iMac could sell just as well.

Insanely great products as long as it doesn't disturb our inane product segmentation mentality.

eric67
Jan 23, 2004, 04:06 AM
here is more detailed info :
http://croquer.free.fr/

a must read
look reasonably OK,...
mow is it true???

Rincewind42
Jan 23, 2004, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by eric67
here is more detailed info :
http://croquer.free.fr/

a must read
look reasonably OK,...
mow is it true???

Well, they appear to be quoting macosrumors (http://www.macosrumors.com) so the likely hood of this being correct as written is almost slim-to-none :p . But we won't really know until it happens or doesn't.

eric67
Jan 23, 2004, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Well, they appear to be quoting macosrumors (http://www.macosrumors.com) so the likely hood of this being correct as written is almost slim-to-none :p . But we won't really know until it happens or doesn't.
they are quoting Macrumors.com, but they are adding interesteing details, that macrumors.com apparently did not have...
now I agree with you, if it turns out to be truee, then they will gain large credits..
by the way, on the time schedule, they were reporting PPC970 update before macrumors.com..

splashman
Jan 23, 2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
I can afford any Mac I want. What I want is a G5 iMac. The PM is too big a beast and I'm not thrilled with the look.

Apple's always seems to bastardize models to protect others in the lineup. Bad move because it hurts sales. The consensus is that the iMac shouldn't have a G5 because the "pro" line has it. ************. There is plenty of differentiation between the PM and iMac if they had the same chip. Dual processors, RAM expandability, video, Firewire 800, expansion slots to name a few.

There is nothing wrong with a tiered market approach. My problem is with holding products back to protect others. Let's not forget the original iMac, same chip as the "pro" line and it saved Apple. A G5 iMac could sell just as well.

Insanely great products as long as it doesn't disturb our inane product segmentation mentality.

See? You managed to express yourself without name-calling. Thanks for clarifying -- I must have misunderstood.

FWIW, I mostly agree with you, but unlike you, I'm assuming Apple would love to get G5s into the iMacs ASAP (instead of assuming Apple is deliberately trying to ruin your day). I wonder if there are issues we aren't privy to. Such as, perhaps the supply of G5 chips is still too limited. Dunno. Here's hoping they make the switch soon. Maybe when the PM's are speed-bumped?

idkew
Jan 23, 2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by rdowns


There is nothing wrong with a tiered market approach. My problem is with holding products back to protect others. Let's not forget the original iMac, same chip as the "pro" line and it saved Apple. A G5 iMac could sell just as well.

Insanely great products as long as it doesn't disturb our inane product segmentation mentality.

while i agree with you somewhat, i do not think it is all by choice.

did you ever think that apple has a limited number of engineers, and con no take on several complete motherboard/case/etc redesigns at the same time?

stingerman
Jan 23, 2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by idkew
while i agree with you somewhat, i do not think it is all by choice.

did you ever think that apple has a limited number of engineers, and con no take on several complete motherboard/case/etc redesigns at the same time?

Keep in mind that they have a larger R&D budget than even DELL. You would think that most of that money was being spent on the product that generates the majority of their revenue. Steve did say that the future of the Mac was the G5 at the latest MacWorld. I take that at face value that the entire line will go G5. The iMac line needs the most help right now as they are outside the consumer sweet-spot according to Fred Andersons own comments. He defined that sweet-spot at 999. So I suspect that Apple will release a low-end, hopefully 17" (probably 15") iMac with 1.4GHz G5 at 999 to a 20" with 1.8GHz at 1,999.

The 970FX makes it very possible for Apple to put a G5 in an iMac and iBook. Especially considering the high-end iBook is at 1GHz an upgrade to 1.4GHz G5 would be sweet.

splashman
Jan 23, 2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
Keep in mind that they have a larger R&D budget than even DELL. You would think that most of that money was being spent on the product that generates the majority of their revenue.

That may or may not be true -- neither you nor I have any idea how much of that R&D budget is going toward projects and concepts that will never see the light of day.

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to your argument, given that almost 50% of Apple's revenue comes from the portables (PBs and iBooks) -- much more than any other segment.

stingerman
Jan 23, 2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
As you as you realize that it was inevitable that Apple would sell fewer PowerMac G5s last quarter than the previous one - no one in the know buys before a MacWorld, and with 60K+ viewers tuning in, you can bet that all of them waiting to see if a new PowerMac would be released would make a dent in sales. At least here we notice that that really means that they are destined for the new upgrade, whereas analysts seem to keep their head up their butts and not realize that it isn't actually a major issue :D

Apple's Mac sales are affected by the seasons. The fact is that Year over Year, Macs sold more, not less (In fact, PowerMac unit sales were up 30%!, compared with 156K units last year.) That is a major win. These were actual sales and not just filling the retail channel, Apple clearly stated that they were reducing G5 inventory in the channel which accounted for another 20K or so sales that could have happened otherwise. Apple mainly does this before they release a new revision. Which means that they took the inventory hit in the First Fiscal quarter, leaving the second quarter stronger for the new 970FX release. This was smart as the 1st QTR was stronger than they anticipated and it gave them room to do a few things. 1. Reduce their inventory, which always costs them. 2. Create a Warranty contingency cushion against future Warranty claims (this amounts to a nice slush fund since Apple already took the Warranty hit on the White Spot PB 15" problem.) 3. Prepare for a new lineup of Mac and iPod releases, taking part of the costs in the 1st QTR.

So when you look at it from this perspective, Apple's 1st quarter sales results for the Mac was actually very strong considering the season and the preparation for a new set of Mac releases. These kids know what they are doing, they've been at it a long time and bear all the scars of experience.

stingerman
Jan 23, 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by splashman

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to your argument, given that almost 50% of Apple's revenue comes from the portables (PBs and iBooks) -- much more than any other segment.

Not "much more", to be specific the desktops (PM, iMac, eMac) still make slightly more. But, really we can safely say that its is now about 50/50. The only segment that has decreased in unit and revenue sales year over year is the iMac/eMac, which I'll refer to both as iMac (Apple categorizes eMac sales as part of iMac in their filings.) That makes it safe to say that Apple is most concerned about their iMac right now. The CFO stated that for its price category (1299 and up) iMacs are selling strong against the competition. But, the majority of consumers are buying 999 PC's. (I am guessing that consumers generally no longer are interested in CRT all-in-ones such as the eMac.) Apple needs to ignite the iMac sales.

Of course the argument is well made that iMac users are simply buying iBooks and Powerbooks. So for an iMac to be relevant for the consumer, it would have to provide some value that the iBook does not. Besides a G5 processor, I expect Apple will release a new consumer line that will depart greatly from current consumer PC's including the current iMac. I also suspect that it will not have "Mac" in its name.

aswitcher
Jan 23, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
SNIP

Of course the argument is well made that iMac users are simply buying iBooks and Powerbooks. So for an iMac to be relevant for the consumer, it would have to provide some value that the iBook does not. Besides a G5 processor, I expect Apple will release a new consumer line that will depart greatly from current consumer PC's including the current iMac. I also suspect that it will not have "Mac" in its name.

Well they did ignite the computing world 20 years ago with a really cheap and easy to use computer, so since their sales of iMac suck (we presume) then dropping its price or bringing out something new that has a TFT screen and hits the sweet money spot would seem a good idea. I really hope the iMac "makeover" isn't killed by a new super cheap but pretty poor-verage speced machine...

Where is my metal G5 iMac...:D

CalfCanuck
Jan 23, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by aswitcher
Well they did ignite the computing world 20 years ago with a really cheap and easy to use computer, so since their sales of iMac suck (we presume) then dropping its price or bringing out something new that has a TFT screen and hits the sweet money spot would seem a good idea. I really hope the iMac "makeover" isn't killed by a new super cheap but pretty poor-verage speced machine...
While Apple did ignite the computer market with an easy to use machine, unfortunately the original Mac 128 KB was not that cheap or "over" spec'ed. Mine cost $2499 back then (if my memory holds) and the 128 KB memory, along with one 400 KB floppy, was a severe handicap. Sure, it was a cool and great computer, but Apple skimped on the memory to hit their price point, and it was pretty unusable until the 512KB version came out (thank goodness for those Fat Mac solder upgrades!).

Apple caught a lot of flack with this first realease from the computer press people, but it was a correct criticism. When using MacWrite, you maxed out memory at 5 pages. So to write a 10 page paper you had to have it split in two files, juggling the link (with cut and paste) between the two so it looked coherent.

This has always been one criticism of Apple - while sometimes it seems they don't want to cut corners on things like buses, etc, they turn around and screw the user on "extras" like keyboards. How many years did Apple squeeze an $100 out of us for that extra? And Apple has always skimped on RAM, esp on their high end machines.

So while I'd love to see a $999 17" iMac like some are dreaming about, I doubt it will happen. I'd settle for a major speed upgrade and consider us lucky with that. (Prove me wrong, Apple ...)

duwurst
Jan 23, 2004, 04:24 PM
What I like on Intel and AMD is that they have a roadmap and no one needs to speculate so much. I bought an iBook G3 2 months before they came up with the G4 iBook and I hate this. And I read all the rumorsites and everyone was telling me there will be no G4 in the iBooks.

Did anyone ever tried simply to ask Apple when or if there will be a G5 Book in the near future?

idkew
Jan 23, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by duwurst
Did anyone ever tried simply to ask Apple when or if there will be a G5 Book in the near future?

you make me laugh. :) :D

if only it were that easy. unfortunately, this would never happen. if apple said that in 2 weeks, there would be a new g5 book, then no one would buy a book for those 2 weeks, then apple has overstocks they can't sell........

wizard
Jan 23, 2004, 04:55 PM
Having been in a position of MacPlus ownership I have to say one thing, even now Apple grossly short changes its customers with machines that don't have enough RAM. You would think with the advent of OS/X and the need to attrack new customerS Apple would have taken a closer look at this. Further I do not believe it is an issue of hitting a price point, more of an issue of maximizing profits.

The iBook is probaly the worst example in the current line up. It so reminds me of the MacPlus that I just find the whole thing rather repulsive.

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by CalfCanuck
While Apple did ignite the computer market with an easy to use machine, unfortunately the original Mac 128 KB was not that cheap or "over" spec'ed. Mine cost $2499 back then (if my memory holds) and the 128 KB memory, along with one 400 KB floppy, was a severe handicap. Sure, it was a cool and great computer, but Apple skimped on the memory to hit their price point, and it was pretty unusable until the 512KB version came out (thank goodness for those Fat Mac solder upgrades!).

splashman
Jan 23, 2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by wizard
Having been in a position of MacPlus ownership I have to say one thing, even now Apple grossly short changes its customers with machines that don't have enough RAM. You would think with the advent of OS/X and the need to attrack new customerS Apple would have taken a closer look at this. Further I do not believe it is an issue of hitting a price point, more of an issue of maximizing profits.

In general, I agree with you, but then, I'm a power user and a geek.

Would you agree that for those who use their computer for browsing, e-mail and word processing, the base RAM in the iMac is sufficient? If so, doesn't it make sense that Apple not load it up with RAM (and up the price) for those who don't need it?

The PMs are another matter. Anybody who buys a G5 for pedestrian usage has more money than brains, so I see no reason not to give the PMs more base RAM.

idkew
Jan 23, 2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by splashman
The PMs are another matter. Anybody who buys a G5 for pedestrian usage has more money than brains, so I see no reason not to give the PMs more base RAM.

I, personally, believe that the pro machines should have an option for no RAM. Most pros add more RAM from 3rd parties, and sell the standard apple ram. Besides, apple uses high latency ram, which makes little sense. I got two 512mb 2-2-2 sticks, to replace the 256mb 3-3-2 (or something) stick that apple included with my machine.

But, that would erode the profits that apple makes, so this will never happen. Plus it opens up other problems, since the machine can not boot when you receive it.

splashman
Jan 23, 2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by idkew
I, personally, believe that the pro machines should have an option for no RAM. Most pros add more RAM from 3rd parties, and sell the standard apple ram. Besides, apple uses high latency ram, which makes little sense. I got two 512mb 2-2-2 sticks, to replace the 256mb 3-3-2 (or something) stick that apple included with my machine.

But, that would erode the profits that apple makes, so this will never happen. Plus it opens up other problems, since the machine can not boot when you receive it.

I agree with you on both counts: (1) Apple should have a no-RAM option, and (2) it will never happen. :)

rdowns
Jan 23, 2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by splashman
See? You managed to express yourself without name-calling. Thanks for clarifying -- I must have misunderstood.

FWIW, I mostly agree with you, but unlike you, I'm assuming Apple would love to get G5s into the iMacs ASAP (instead of assuming Apple is deliberately trying to ruin your day). I wonder if there are issues we aren't privy to. Such as, perhaps the supply of G5 chips is still too limited. Dunno. Here's hoping they make the switch soon. Maybe when the PM's are speed-bumped?

Thank you, but "head up their asses" marketing is still what I call it. As an Apple user since 1986 and a reseller from 1986-1996, I've watched Apple do this time and again.

Back in the day, Apple clued their resellers in on upcoming models and even shared why this feature wouldn't go into this machine because we need to protect the other machine.

IMO, they are the biggest reason for their sagging market share. With the iPod, I can only hope they are not going to repeat their past errors.

rdowns
Jan 23, 2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by splashman
That may or may not be true -- neither you nor I have any idea how much of that R&D budget is going toward projects and concepts that will never see the light of day.

Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to your argument, given that almost 50% of Apple's revenue comes from the portables (PBs and iBooks) -- much more than any other segment.

Could be the reason they derive so much revenue from portables is because their non PM desktops are kind of pitiful these days.

rdowns
Jan 23, 2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
Not "much more", to be specific the desktops (PM, iMac, eMac) still make slightly more. But, really we can safely say that its is now about 50/50. The only segment that has decreased in unit and revenue sales year over year is the iMac/eMac, which I'll refer to both as iMac (Apple categorizes eMac sales as part of iMac in their filings.) That makes it safe to say that Apple is most concerned about their iMac right now. The CFO stated that for its price category (1299 and up) iMacs are selling strong against the competition. But, the majority of consumers are buying 999 PC's. (I am guessing that consumers generally no longer are interested in CRT all-in-ones such as the eMac.) Apple needs to ignite the iMac sales.

Of course the argument is well made that iMac users are simply buying iBooks and Powerbooks. So for an iMac to be relevant for the consumer, it would have to provide some value that the iBook does not. Besides a G5 processor, I expect Apple will release a new consumer line that will depart greatly from current consumer PC's including the current iMac. I also suspect that it will not have "Mac" in its name.

Not use "Mac" in its name? I can't see them doing that. They sell Macintosh computers, not others. They have a hard enough time growing market share. Releasing a new computer and not calling it a Mac would be branding suicide in my opinion.

idkew
Jan 23, 2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
Could be the reason they derive so much revenue from portables is because their non PM desktops are kind of pitiful these days.

i think that these numbers account for several reasons. once has to do with the fact that apple was stuck with the g4 powermac, and few had a reason to upgrade until the g5. these numbers might be changing now.

i also believe that apple has a smaller profit margin on the iMachines, as they are in a much more competitive market when it comes to consumers. Pros easily justify spending more for a mac than a pc, but a consumer might not be able to do the same.

splashman
Jan 23, 2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
Could be the reason they derive so much revenue from portables is because their non PM desktops are kind of pitiful these days.

Uh, does this mean you haven't noticed that the shift to portables is industry-wide? A lot of companies and home users are buying laptops as desktop replacements. I could never settle for the performance hit, but for the average office drone and the average home user, portables make a lot of sense.

rdowns
Jan 23, 2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by splashman
In general, I agree with you, but then, I'm a power user and a geek.

Would you agree that for those who use their computer for browsing, e-mail and word processing, the base RAM in the iMac is sufficient? If so, doesn't it make sense that Apple not load it up with RAM (and up the price) for those who don't need it?

The PMs are another matter. Anybody who buys a G5 for pedestrian usage has more money than brains, so I see no reason not to give the PMs more base RAM.

A 256MB stick for an iMac runs about $50. A 512MB stick about $100. Probably much less a delta at Apple wholesale prices. To stick a paltry 256MB stick as standard and not a 512MB just sucks. A standard 256MB really limits the users expandability.

Same thing they did in G3 iBooks, a paltry 128MB stanard.

Squeeze every last drop of profit. As a user, I don't like it. As an Apple shareholder, it didn't do much, if anything for me.

rdowns
Jan 23, 2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by splashman
Uh, does this mean you haven't noticed that the shift to portables is industry-wide? A lot of companies and home users are buying laptops as desktop replacements. I could never settle for the performance hit, but for the average office drone and the average home user, portables make a lot of sense.

But the iMac is like a portable (takes up little desk space) without the performance hit and less limitations. The PC world has nothing like it, they all sell ugly towers. I think there's way too much trade off in portable as desktop replacements (screen size, keyboard, performance).

I see full page ads every day in the paper for Dell, HP and IBM and they all feature dedktops. Apparently someone is buying these.

Just because I vouldn't resist, I bought a used G3/900 iBook for $601 from compusaauctions (turned out it was new. :D No way could I see this as my everyday computer. Quite frankly, it just another of my toys.

OK, I've rambled enough here.

Chryx
Jan 23, 2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
Not use "Mac" in its name? I can't see them doing that.

um...

* looks over at ibook *

nope, they'd never sell a computer that didn't have 'mac' in the name.

stingerman
Jan 24, 2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Chryx
um...

* looks over at ibook *

nope, they'd never sell a computer that didn't have 'mac' in the name.

I was wondering when someone would catch on. While there is a lot positive about Mac, it is also perceived as a high-end PC, so many consumers dismiss it out of hand. Whereas professionals are drawn to it.

iPod and iBook are both huge successes. OS X is another huge success. It's AppleWorks and not MacWrite anymore. It's iPhoto and not MacPaint. The original Apple computer was not a Mac it was a II and then IIe, IIc and even a III. The server is not MacServe, it's Xserve. Apple has been careful to give their new products new identities so that customers look at them without any old prejudices.

That is why I think the next Apple consumer computer will not have the name Macintosh in it. Of course it will run OS X, and we will always know it as a Mac computer, but the reality is that Apple needs to give the consumer a message that this is not a new revision but simply new and he needs to give it a fresh look. I think that is why iPod has so many Windows buyers, they don' associate it with Mac myths and prejudices.

Snowy_River
Jan 24, 2004, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
That is why I think the next Apple consumer computer will not have the name Macintosh in it.


Yes, well, my PowerBook doesn't have the name 'Mac' in it, but it's well recognized that it's a Macintosh computer. So is the iBook that my friend has. I think that we're getting into a bit of a nebulous region. What about the Performa? Or the Quadra? Or the Centris? These were all Macs that technically didn't have 'Mac' in the name. I don't think it's quite as simple as you seem to think that it is...

amir12
Jan 24, 2004, 01:15 AM
wow this thread has nothing to do with its title anymore :D

splashman
Jan 24, 2004, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
The original Apple computer was not a Mac it was a II and then IIe, IIc and even a III.

Okay, obsessive me just HAD to mention that you forgot the ][+ (before the ][e). :)

melgross
Jan 24, 2004, 03:28 AM
How about my throwing this out?

I was a partner in an audio firm a number of years ago. We produced speakers for professional use, as well as station monitors for broadcast radio, modular amps, etc. I'm pointing this out because I have designed equipment that was of high grade. The G5's are to my mind the best designs Apple has ever produced, and remind me of what my company used to do (though it was analog).

I've looked at the G5 the way a production engineer would, for the purpose of seeing where the "fat" could be removed in order to make it less expensive without cheapening it. I believe that I have succeeded.

Most of us here probably would agree that the iMac, while quite elegant, has probably seen the best of it's sales in the past, and that no matter what Apple does, they will most likely continue to decline.

My feeling is that they don't really have a definite market place. Businesses don't like them because they are too distracting, and not expandable or up-dateable enough, as well as being to expensive. Schools don't like them because they are too maneuverable, and the students will first play with the arm, and then break them. That was why the eMac came out (to Apple's surprise). This leaves the home user. That is most of the sales base. But the wonder of the design has worn off, and sales decline.

I have a proposal. A less expensive tower. This doesn't seem to be so insightful, because everyone has been crying out for this. True. But I think that I know how it can be done in a realistic way that can be produced.

Looking at this as an engineer who has designed product, I have identified areas which would cut costs drastically, and yet leave a unit that would still be a "Mac" in every way.

Here are some of my ideas.

1. Eliminate the handles and feet. These really do add more to the cost than you would believe, and as my proposals would cut the size and weight, would not be needed anyway as the machine could be carried under the arm, or in a case.

2. This would be a single processor machine. Apple now uses the same case and motherboard size for both the single and dual models. This could be smaller.

3. To do this, Apple could cut the size of the motherboard in several ways.
a. Eliminate the almost 3 inches that are unused for the second processor.
b. Cut the memory slots down to two. This would still enable 2 gig's of memory now, and four when the 2 gig sticks come out later this year. Very few businesses or home users, or schools need more than this.
c. Cut the Toslink optical. This was really a mistake on Apple's part, as Toslink is not regarded highly in the audio or recording industry. Most pro digital recording devices use AES/EBU, S/PDIF for semi-pro or home equipment. This could save $50 if they go back to the mini-jack.

This would cut the price of the motherboard by at least 25%, and Apple's motherboards are not cheap!

4. Use a 1.8 processor and PCI 2.1 spec slots. They will certainly do the job. Keep the 8x AGP, as it only adds a few bucks to the total, and still allows the high performance boards that gamer's love.

5. In calculating power needs, I found that Apple was generous. A 325 watt supply is all that is needed on this "new" mini-tower. It would need less fans as well.

6. The case can now be lowered by three inches. When the lack of handles and feet are added in, the difference is more like six inches. We have also lost at least ten pounds.

When we are through, the Mac still looks like a Mac, and performs like a Mac. It still has that industrial but stylish look.

What would this cost? I estimate that it could hit the shelves for $999.

With a new Apple LCD for under $500, this would be a great price point. With a $75 17" CRT, it would be a steal!!

If Apple would wise up, it would understand that, like Microsoft (shudder), its main competitor in the future is Linux. Here, the hardware could compete. But there is one last thing...

Do the oldtimers, such as myself, remember when Apple sold hardware, and gave away the OS? This stopped with System 7. I guess Apple looked around one day and saw that Microsoft was making money on software and decided that they should as well.

The problem is that The OS, for Apple, isn't worth much. They sold about $135,000,000 worth last year. Before you say that that's a lot, figure what that is as a percentage of total sales of (hopefully) at least $7,000,000,000. Almost nothing. A little more than two thirds is profit.

My suggestion is that Apple sell it for $49. They will make a profit on that, but more importantly, as the members of my Mac group here in NYC agree, many more people will upgrade each time. Apple would probably sell a good deal more.

The other advantages are that businesses would not think that Mac's are more expensive, maybe less. Microsoft would have to meet a much lower pricing if Apple gave site licenses based on that one seat price. AND Linux would not have so much of an advantage either. Red Hat and IBM, among others, sell their LINUX support sets for a comparable price. A lot of LINUX users like MAC's and OS X, but they won't pay the price. No more excuses.

What do you think?

aswitcher
Jan 24, 2004, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by melgross
How about my throwing this out?

SNIP

I've looked at the G5 the way a production engineer would, for the purpose of seeing where the "fat" could be removed in order to make it less expensive without cheapening it. I believe that I have succeeded.

Most of us here probably would agree that the iMac, while quite elegant, has probably seen the best of it's sales in the past, and that no matter what Apple does, they will most likely continue to decline.

SNIP

I have a proposal. A less expensive tower. This doesn't seem to be so insightful, because everyone has been crying out for this. True. But I think that I know how it can be done in a realistic way that can be produced.

Looking at this as an engineer who has designed product, I have identified areas which would cut costs drastically, and yet leave a unit that would still be a "Mac" in every way.

Here are some of my ideas.

1. Eliminate the handles and feet. These really do add more to the cost than you would believe, and as my proposals would cut the size and weight, would not be needed anyway as the machine could be carried under the arm, or in a case.

2. This would be a single processor machine. Apple now uses the same case and motherboard size for both the single and dual models. This could be smaller.

3. To do this, Apple could cut the size of the motherboard in several ways.
a. Eliminate the almost 3 inches that are unused for the second processor.
b. Cut the memory slots down to two. This would still enable 2 gig's of memory now, and four when the 2 gig sticks come out later this year. Very few businesses or home users, or schools need more than this.
c. Cut the Toslink optical. This was really a mistake on Apple's part, as Toslink is not regarded highly in the audio or recording industry. Most pro digital recording devices use AES/EBU, S/PDIF for semi-pro or home equipment. This could save $50 if they go back to the mini-jack.

This would cut the price of the motherboard by at least 25%, and Apple's motherboards are not cheap!

4. Use a 1.8 processor and PCI 2.1 spec slots. They will certainly do the job. Keep the 8x AGP, as it only adds a few bucks to the total, and still allows the high performance boards that gamer's love.

5. In calculating power needs, I found that Apple was generous. A 325 watt supply is all that is needed on this "new" mini-tower. It would need less fans as well.

6. The case can now be lowered by three inches. When the lack of handles and feet are added in, the difference is more like six inches. We have also lost at least ten pounds.

When we are through, the Mac still looks like a Mac, and performs like a Mac. It still has that industrial but stylish look.

What would this cost? I estimate that it could hit the shelves for $999.

SNIP
What do you think?

Well it sounds good for me. I guess this is sort of what I am hoping for with the wishful talk about a new cube.
I want G5, good graphics, preferably 4 not 2 slots for ram - its much cheaper to buy 512 sticks, and you need to balance them out with the G5. Smaller form factor would be a big plus.
If you kept everything else you get with the current G5 range, this would be very appealing.

Ability to mount a TFT screen on an arm afixed to the "cube" up to at leats 20" would be very fine as well. I hope the new "metal" screens cater for more than just bezels...

Jason

Jason

splashman
Jan 24, 2004, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by melgross
I've looked at the G5 the way a production engineer would, for the purpose of seeing where the "fat" could be removed in order to make it less expensive without cheapening it. I believe that I have succeeded.

No offense intended -- this is a sincere question: do you really think Apple can't figure out how to make a cheap case & motherboard? You've done a fine job of detailing how they could do it, but your basic hypothesis is so self-evident I'm struggling to see the point of bringing it up. The question was never "Can they?" The question is "Will they?"

Most of us here probably would agree that the iMac, while quite elegant, has probably seen the best of it's sales in the past, and that no matter what Apple does, they will most likely continue to decline.

I disagree. The current design is absolutely fabulous, especially compared to the competition. Sure, it can and will be updated, but the all-in-one solution is not just elegant -- it's cleaner, simpler, and smaller than separate components. Your argument re: businesses is misguided because Apple doesn't try to sell boxes to the cubical jungle. And businesses don't care about expandability (except RAM, which is easy enough) -- it has long been the case that businesses will buy new cheap boxes instead of hassling with upgrades. Your argument re: schools is misguided, as most schools are going to portables, whether they are Macs or PCs. And I've got anecdotal evidence of my own that at least one school district loves the iMacs because (a) they are more rugged than portables, (b) small footprint, and (c) the kids love them. (My brother-in-law is assistant district superintendent.)

IMHO, the only things wrong with the iMac are cost and the spec sheet. It would sure be nice if Apple could cut a couple hundred off each model. And the megahertz gap is not a functional problem, it's a marketing nightmare.

If Apple would wise up, it would understand that, like Microsoft (shudder), its main competitor in the future is Linux.

How many decades in the future? ;)

Do the oldtimers, such as myself, remember when Apple sold hardware, and gave away the OS?

Um, isn't this all just money-juggling? Apple most certainly has a target gross margin. If they get $135m less from the OS, they'll have to boost prices on hardware to recover it. And it seems to me that your average short-sighted business owner is much more concerned with sticker shock (hardware) than maintenance (OS).

Besides, your argument for lowering the OS cost just doesn't add up. If you are correct that two-thirds of the $129 OS price is profit (that's a big IF -- where the heck did that come from), that means that approx. $44 is the break-even point, with the additional $85 being profit. If you lower the price to $49, profit is cut to $5, and you'd have to sell 17 TIMES the copies to get the same profit. Yeah, that'll happen . . .

A lot of LINUX users like MAC's and OS X, but they won't pay the price.

OS cost is a tiny part of the Mac's TCO. Tiny! You just got done saying Apple shouldn't care about $135m from their OS sales, and now say that a Linux user will pay $1,500 or more for a Mac and then whine about $129 for a major OS update sometime in the quasi-distant future?

If you're actually saying that the entire system (hardware and software) are too expensive, welcome to reality. Apple has never and will never be able to compete on price, because that would require them to build a commodity box, like Dull. Apple (and SJ) have stated over and over and over that they will never sell a box. Disagree with their strategy all you want -- just don't hold your breath waiting for your cheap Linux box.

That's what I think. :)

ffakr
Jan 24, 2004, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by melgross
Schools don't like them because they are too maneuverable, and the students will first play with the arm, and then break them. That was why the eMac came out (to Apple's surprise).
Working at 2 Universities, I'll comment on what I percieve schools to want.
First off, we'd love to fill our labs with nice iMacs (graphic design labs excluded of course).
Pros to the iMac:
- screen moves out of the way for lecture style classrooms
- lcd/g4 combo put out little heat, the rooms we uses were never designed for 20+ computers and monitors and they often get too hot (even with retroactive tweaks to HVAC)
- They look pretty so they make the school look good (and for mac guys on a University campus, they draw people into our labs.. over the PC ones ;-)
- They are quiet so they are easy to teach over

Cons to iMacs in schools
- THEY COST TOO MUCH for what you get. We don't look at it being an oh so cool computer.. it's a box that does 'x' for $$. THIS is why the eMac is in existance.. edu demanded a cheaper (sub $1000) machine.
- there are worries about LCD Damage... but I've never found this to be a problem, even in remote 24x7 labs where we find the plugs cut off the mice and keyboards (yes, only the plugs missing).

We've also found that expandability is something we look for, but in practice we typically don't ever expand a machine. We ocassionally upgrade memory, but usually the machine just sits there till the upgrade cycle comes around. I upgrade the memory in a bunch of Blue and White G3s a while back, but only because they had 64 and the budget for replacement was thin.

dke
Jan 24, 2004, 06:16 AM
I think people are missing some points about portables and G5's. The issues are a lot bigger than just power consumption of the chip. There's also issues like power management (going down to lower consumption modes), there are issues like it is 64 bits so it uses a data path twice as wide; how much more power does that consume (or the fact that two banks of RAM are live at a time). The faster bus consumes more power, and requires that RAM consumes more power as well, not to mention all the I/O chips (which are also faster and thus more power wasteful). There's issues of locality of heat/power and moving that around (hot spots), so cooling can be an issue. And then there's the OS itself (and services) that consumer more and more power.

I would love to see a G5 performance class portable. But the other side is that OSX still sucks on power management. Even though I use OS X exclusively, I get probably half the battery life I used to on OS 9. The scheduler is richer than OS 9, but not really rich in knowing lower power/priority tasks and so on, and some is because UNIX-think and design is about running all these threads that need to be serviced (and burn mips) even if they aren't really doing much. Apple and others spend those MIPs because they have them, which is fine on a desktop, less so on a laptop. But things are getting worse; my PowerBook's fan (15") runs way too much as it is, and eats too much power and has too short a battery life. I can barely (if lucky) watch a DVD. The overheating in my other PowerBook (my wife uses) means she can get abour 20 minutes on her battery; which obviously needs to be replaced. But this is because the machines get uncomfortably hot as it is (which kills your batteries). I can't use my powerbook in clamshell mode as it is, partly because Apple doesn't think I should be able to (and thus design for it), and partly because of ventilation, but the point is that I'd like to. And so on, and so forth.

So I care about balancing the entire system, and I don't think the G5 is going to fix that. There are much more important things to productivity that raw power, and much more to power management than just the average draw of the CPU. So build me a portable that is reliable (not fragile), has a decent battery life, doesn't run the fan all the time, has a dock, works in clamshell mode, doesn't get smudges on the screen, and doesn't get so hot that it cooks its battery, and that'll go a long way.... oh yeah, and I'd also like it to be faster.

splashman
Jan 24, 2004, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by dke
I think people are missing some points about portables and G5's.

Hey, what do you think you're doing? You're not supposed to actually post anything on-topic! It makes the rest of us look bad! :)

CalfCanuck
Jan 24, 2004, 08:09 AM
While melgross felt OS X was not really a money maker for Apple and the future of computing was Linux, there are two other things I feel he forgot about OS X:

First, owning the OS X is not just a chance to get money out of existing users through upgrades. Is the $135 million you quote as OS X revenue adjusted to take Apple's new units sold into account? Did Apple "charge itself" with $119 for every new unit shipped last year? This is a classic "internal transfer fee" problem for a company's books, as the hardware division is a "parasite" of the OS division. Without the OS, the hardware division would (of course!) have a harder time selling those Mac boxes.

And it also saves Apple precious dollars in not paying a license fee to an outside company for every NEW unit sold like the PC world does to MS. (I know that Linux doesn't involve this payment, but you had various arguments, and we'll get to Linux next.)

So while the OS has at times been a drag on it's finances, in most respects it is one of Apple's competitive strengths.

But the second big bonus of Apple's OS X is it's ability to be fine-tuned to both the hardware, and ultimately to the processor (after all the theme of this thread!!) We see this in Apple's push into digital video, wedding the OS, the hardware, and Final Cut Pro.

As has been discussed earlier in this thread by people far more knowledgable of the technical spec's of the 970FX, is it any coincidence that this processor, (and parts of the OS X) are fine tuned to "multimedia like" tasks?

And doesn't this ability to merge the G5 hardware and the customized OS to whatever direction Apple wants (subject to the processor's design) highlight one of the company's overall advantages? Could it do this with Linux? Should it even care about the users who want the cheapest solution, or focus on adding value to those willing to pay for a more elegent solution?

Of course Apple needs to address it's aging lineup - but it seems ironic to argue that Apple should drop OS X now that this new system they've been pushing for years has finally come of age. It's finally getting some traction, and is now being tuned to bring out the power of the G5 chip. Rather than running away from the G5, Apple needs to rush it's entire product line over to IBM and figure how to push that processor to it's limit!

Rincewind42
Jan 24, 2004, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by dke
I think people are missing some points about portables and G5's. The issues are a lot bigger than just power consumption of the chip. There's also issues like power management (going down to lower consumption modes), there are issues like it is 64 bits so it uses a data path twice as wide; how much more power does that consume (or the fact that two banks of RAM are live at a time). The faster bus consumes more power, and requires that RAM consumes more power as well, not to mention all the I/O chips (which are also faster and thus more power wasteful). There's issues of locality of heat/power and moving that around (hot spots), so cooling can be an issue. And then there's the OS itself (and services) that consumer more and more power.

Apple's not going to take the PowerMac design and just drop it in a laptop and call it a day - and for many practical reasons they can't. Personally of the points you bring up, I think Apple will make the following compromises for a PowerBook:

1) 64-bit data paths will not go everywhere - in fact the boss to the CPU is actually dual 32-bit unidirectional, so while there are more pins in/out of the CPU this isn't really a big deal from a power perspective.

2) The PowerBooks will probably not use Dual Channel. When you have 8 RAM slots that's one thing, but when you have only two you can't really get away with filling them both at the factory. If they decide to do dual channel anyway, then we'll probably see RAM soldered on the motherboard…

3) The various system busses don't have to run as fast as they do on the PowerMac. The system controller will be simpler due to not needing to support PCI/PCI-X slots (which removes the 16-bit HT link) and since the chips aren't likely to be 1.8 or 2Ghz the ram will probably be PC2700 instead of the PC3200 in the towers.

4) As for the OS, it's been getting more and more efficient, so I really can't see how it's consuming more power :) .

I would love to see a G5 performance class portable. But the other side is that OSX still sucks on power management. Even though I use OS X exclusively, I get probably half the battery life I used to on OS 9. The scheduler is richer than OS 9, but not really rich in knowing lower power/priority tasks and so on, and some is because UNIX-think and design is about running all these threads that need to be serviced.

I never really spent much time in OS 9 (it's been a LONG time) but what I do remember is that some of the Power management features that gave you that longer battery life was utterly horrid from a usage point of view - OS 9 may have been aggressive about CPU cycling but it was also ignorant of the real amount of CPU you needed - you stop moving the mouse and suddenly that Photoshop operation slows to a crawl...

Apple is aware that they need to do more for Power Management on OS X, but I also think that they are doing what they can for the hardware that they no longer make. The PowerMac G5 can shed gobs of wattage (cranking down to about 1.3Ghz when idle by lowering CPU voltage). I think that a PowerBook G5 would have much the same technology in it.

The overheating in my other PowerBook (my wife uses) means she can get abour 20 minutes on her battery; which obviously needs to be replaced. But this is because the machines get uncomfortably hot as it is (which kills your batteries).

You wouldn't happen to have an original PowerBook G4 with the original battery would you? It's not a heat issue, but a short-charge cycle issue that occurs when you spent most if not all of your time on the power adapter. Heat does nuke the battery, but I have not seen a PowerBook get so hot so regularly that it is an issue... Of course, if this isn't the case you are probably right :D .

So I care about balancing the entire system, and I don't think the G5 is going to fix that. There are much more important things to productivity that raw power, and much more to power management than just the average draw of the CPU. So build me a portable that is reliable (not fragile), has a decent battery life, doesn't run the fan all the time, has a dock, works in clamshell mode, doesn't get smudges on the screen, and doesn't get so hot that it cooks its battery, and that'll go a long way.... oh yeah, and I'd also like it to be faster.

Someday... someday...

Rincewind42
Jan 24, 2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by melgross
The problem is that The OS, for Apple, isn't worth much. They sold about $135,000,000 worth last year. Before you say that that's a lot, figure what that is as a percentage of total sales of (hopefully) at least $7,000,000,000. Almost nothing. A little more than two thirds is profit.

My suggestion is that Apple sell it for $49. They will make a profit on that, but more importantly, as the members of my Mac group here in NYC agree, many more people will upgrade each time. Apple would probably sell a good deal more.


I don't think your analysis of OS price holds water. If Apple sold the OS for 1/3 it's current price, the revenue from that sale could support, at most, only about 900 engineers (if your being incredibly cheap with their salaries & benefits relative to California standards). There are easily that many paid workers working on Mac OS X, as well as other people whose work is paramount to getting the OS into customer hands. And finally the resellers need to make a profit too or they won't stock the product. If your only selling for $49, and the real cost is $44, then Apple's not going to make ANY profit from reseller sales.

I think a good indicator of the absolute minimum price that Apple could reasonably sell OS X for is the educational price of $69. Much less than that and resellers won't want to stock it, and Apple won't be able to make a reasonable profit.

duwurst
Jan 24, 2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by idkew
you make me laugh. :) :D

if only it were that easy. unfortunately, this would never happen. if apple said that in 2 weeks, there would be a new g5 book, then no one would buy a book for those 2 weeks, then apple has overstocks they can't sell........

So the current Books must not be very good? If Intel says there will be a 4 GHz chip in two months or AMD says the AMD 64 goes mobile (which already happened I know) everyone buys the old stuff because it's not bad and it's fast enough for most of us. And the older chips will be cheaper and that's the normal way it goes. I do not understand why Apple makes all this a secret. Stupid game if you ask me. This keynote stuff where everybody is naked and praise the lord.

Sure I wouldn't have buyed the G3 iBook because in my feeling it's not fast enough for OSX. And I knew that before I bought the thing but why waiting there will be no G4 in iBooks.

dachshund
Jan 24, 2004, 12:29 PM
Hi folks,
IMHO Apple has many alternatives to assemble a G5 PBook:
1) many of the PC manufacturers put batteries in their laptops with a charge greater than 55 Watth.
2) Apples processors did not support big variations in CPU clock. The portable G5 version could have a big range in CPU clock, maybe from 400 MHz to 1.6 GHz. That's standard for mobile pentium boxes.
3) As already mentioned Apple doesn't have to adapt the high memory bandwidth of the desktops fully. The G5 is faster than the G4 not only because of memory and CPU clock speed.
4) Last but not least the 970FX consumes less watts per computing power than the current mobile G4 generation.
5) the new graphics accelerators from ATI could help saving power too if they are properly applied to new pwerbooks.

Doesn't that sound doable?

- regards

Rincewind42
Jan 24, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by duwurst
So the current Books must not be very good? If Intel says there will be a 4 GHz chip in two months or AMD says the AMD 64 goes mobile (which already happened I know) everyone buys the old stuff because it's not bad and it's fast enough for most of us.

But that doesn't take into account the culture difference. When Apple makes an announcement about something it tends to circulate the community a LOT faster than in the PC world, because there is a higher % of us that actually pay attention to these announcements. In the PC world you have lots more people who couldn't care less about Intel or AMD (or even know what they do) and just buy the box they think they need.

And when there are big days each year where you know that it is virtually guaranteed that something will be announced that can affect your purchases, you tend to hold off until that something emerges or you just must buy what is currently available.

It's not so much a case of no body buying what is available now when Apple announces something, or it is suspected of announcing something soon. But the sales effect is noticeable and affects their bottom-line - something which many many people are always watching and probably to Apple's chagrin.

Rincewind42
Jan 24, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by dachshund
1) many of the PC manufacturers put batteries in their laptops with a charge greater than 55 Watt/h.

Apple used to, and then for some reason went with smaller batteries. My TiBook has a 61 W/h battery in it. They may be a little heavier, but the extra time would probably be liked by many...

2) Apples processors did not support big variations in CPU clock. The portable G5 version could have a big range in CPU clock, maybe from 400 MHz to 1.6 GHz. That's standard for mobile pentium boxes.

Most of this variation is needed on P-Ms because at their top rated speeds they use more power than the G4 (current wattage allowances on PC laptops are around 25w or about 2-3 times the G4 typical). Granted it's likely a typical vs peak power comparison, but that still leads one to believe that a 1.6Ghz P-M can consume as much as 20w typical - so being able to ramp down to 1/4 of your top speed makes for good average savings. The current G4s at 1Ghz however use less than 10 watts typical so being able to drop to only 667Mhz isn't as big a deal since you end up using about the same power in both cases (400 P-M vs 667 G4-7447).

4) Last but not least the 970FX consumes less watts per computing power than the current mobile G4 generation.

Well, we know that it consumes at 1.4Ghz it consumes 12.3 watts. Something has been bugging the heck outta me about that (after rereading the sheet) it says that @ 2Ghz and 1v it is 24.5w, but @ 1.4 Ghz and 1v it is 12.3. either there is something seriously wrong with the 970 at low speeds, or they are using different voltages at both levels. I originally thought that it was a case of 1.3v @ 2Ghz and 1.1v at 1.4Ghz, but perhaps the 1.4 Ghz version is more like .85v...

Either way, it contributes to the possibility of G5 PowerBooks, but just seems like they are missing something in that sheet somewhere =).

dachshund
Jan 24, 2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42

Most of this variation is needed on P-Ms because at their top rated speeds they use more power than the G4 (current wattage allowances on PC laptops are around 25w or about 2-3 times the G4 typical). Granted it's likely a typical vs peak power comparison, but that still leads one to believe that a 1.6Ghz P-M can consume as much as 20w typical - so being able to ramp down to 1/4 of your top speed makes for good average savings. The current G4s at 1Ghz however use less than 10 watts typical so being able to drop to only 667Mhz isn't as big a deal since you end up using about the same power in both cases (400 P-M vs 667 G4-7447).


The point is: Many users don't need much power in 80% of their time. I'm mainly doing programming which means: I'm typing 80% of my time and rarely compile or debug something. Only latter tasks need processor power. I could probably get along with 200 MHz in most cases. When you're watching a DVD en-route you might need 400 MHz. What I want to say is: 1.4 GHz is mostly an overkill and dissipating batterie power. That's why I envy people with laptops that provide large scaling in clock frequencies.
Although I do not envy anyone with a non-Apple regardless if he is running Linux or WinniePoo. :D

dachshund
Jan 24, 2004, 03:35 PM
I want to annotate something to some of the guys above in this thread:
Many people argue like "if you're a pro you might want to get more processing power and more RAM". What's so professional about someone specific anyway? You can have a certain profession and hence be not for a long time yet in need of the latest technology or biggest amount of RAM. When I am thinking about a book author: Isn't he a pro? But he needs only a black and white laser printer and maybe a Quadra with 16 MByte RAM to succeed in his profession.

Sorry but that had to be told.

Skiniftz
Jan 24, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by dachshund
I want to annotate something to some of the guys above in this thread:
Many people argue like "if you're a pro you might want to get more processing power and more RAM". What's so professional about someone specific anyway? You can have a certain profession and hence be not for a long time yet in need of the latest technology or biggest amount of RAM. When I am thinking about a book author: Isn't he a pro? But he needs only a black and white laser printer and maybe a Quadra with 16 MByte RAM to succeed in his profession.

Sorry but that had to be told.
It's a valid point, however you have to also ask yourself why the "average" user browsing the web and using email and the odd game needs such power also.

Fact is the people hammering the equipment and who have the most to gain from performance increases are your professional artists, musicians and video editors who stand to gain great advantages from using more powerful computers.

The ability to address 8Gb of RAM alone is a major factor - I personally am a musician and having tons of RAM seriously improves the performance of music applications like Cubase SX particularly when using virtual instruments and large sample libraries. Processing power helps with the amount of things that can be run simultaneously. Putting it simply, when I upgrade to a top end G5 with a lot of RAM, I am literally going to be able to do things musically with ease that I cannot do now without a great deal of inconvenience.

NNO-Stephen
Jan 24, 2004, 04:35 PM
gamers also need the most power. processor and GPU are pushed tot he max with todays games... and want to be ready for tomorrow's titles too ya know. UT 2004, HALO, Half-Life 2 (I can hope can't I?)

:)

dachshund
Jan 24, 2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
gamers also need the most power. processor and GPU are pushed tot he max with todays games... and want to be ready for tomorrow's titles too ya know. UT 2004, HALO, Half-Life 2 (I can hope can't I?)

:)

Maybe you missed that my intention was to break up the relation between need of high-performance desktop computing and profession. But if you define your profession as gaming on your mac then you might be right.

melgross
Jan 24, 2004, 06:18 PM
Thanks for the comments.

To aswitcher:

I know that Apple has probably looked at a small tower-but maybe not. There seems to be a cultural bias against making a less expensive machine. Apple people I have spoken to have said that it couldn't(!) be done. I am simply pointing out that it can be done without going to cheap plastics etc. I did say that the idea wasn't insightful. I'm not claiming to be original with the basic idea, only to have come out with a half decent analysis of how.

I still think that the current iMacs have run most of their course. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who will buy them. But when a product begins a decline in sales, as Apple has shown us with the iMac, it means that the product line is becoming replaceable. GM has discontinued one of their auto lines even though they still sell millions of them.
If Apple comes out with a G5 iMac and the sales uptick for a quarter but trend downwards again, that would tell us for certain. Would pretty flower cases make a difference? They tried that before with the original line when it's sales were down.

I do work for the ED system here in NYC(unpaid advisor). I helped to write the technology plans. We have 1160 K-8 schools here. The high schools are now being put in the same control line as the K-8 which will add another 275 schools to that list. Macs are pervasive in the K-8, but rare in the 9-12. All-in-one Macs(before the iMac) original iMacs, and eMacs make up the bulk of Macs, as they do in other school districts around the country.IBooks have gotten a lot of publicity, but constitute well under 1% of the installed base. The new iMacs have been shunned in education because of the reasons I gave before. This was the whole purpose of the eMac. Perhaps in a college it is somewhat different.

Linux is not a threat "decades in the future". It is beginning to become a threat now. It might be fun to be a Mac user (as I am) and shrug off anything that we don't like as being inferior and unimportant, but it is not so. Analysis by IDG and others have shown trends that Linux might be the second largest desktop OS in less than five years. IBM is moving its desktops to LINUX. We are talking about 60,000. Other companies are are watching this. Governments are moving to LINUX, state as well as foreign. Big money is going into the ease of use problems.

The price of the OS is a publishing question. This is subject to the same economic laws that determine how volume of sales affects prices. Apple is selling about 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 copies retail of the OS every year. Production costs go down as larger volumes are produced. When my company supplied manuals with our machines, we ran into the same situation. It's the same thing with CD production etc. Look in the back of MacWorld for the ads from the CD and card publishers, and you will see what I mean. A book's cost goes down until it reaches the base cost. Below that, the price can't be lowered any further. A hard cover's cost goes down until about 4 million are produced, though it varies. A soft-cover is less.

If Apple sold 3 million a year the cost to produce it would drop almost another 20%, to about (from the numbers I know) $32. This includes marketing. The cost of that would not change much, and so would decline per unit sold.

The idea would not be so much to make a startling profit on each sale, but to get the latest versions out to their customers, something that they are not doing now. The latest programs require the latest versions of the OS for many of their new features, or sometimes won't run at all. Surely you have read the many discussions about the disappointing price points from other Mac users? Now that there are almost 10 million OS X users, Apple has to see that they remain current

Even with Mac users paying good prices for the hardware, there is anger at the pricing of the OS. Even Steve himself had to come out and say that it was worth it in response. Human nature is funny in that way.

Apple is trying very hard these days to sell to the "cubical jungle". That is what the Xserve and the raid is for. This is a way of wedging their way back in. If companies like these, they may take a look at Apple's other products. By the way, Apple is the LOWEST cost solution in that market. Remember that after that first $999, they GIVE AWAY OS Server client for as many seats as required. Even Red Hat and IBM don't do that with their LINUX offerings. It's always the hardware. That's why IBM is giving up their own operating systems.

As for LINUX users, if Mac users whine, why can't they? LINUX users buy hardware just like we do. Sometimes expensive stuff. That doesn't mean that they want to pay over $100 every 14 months or so for an updated OS. I know a number of LINUX users who buy used G3's or G4's for $500 to $1,000, and then put Yellow Dog LINUX on it. They don't have to buy an Apple LCD, as I pointed out, they could get a $75 17" CRT, if they didn't already have one. Same thing with Powerbooks. Most of these guys would love to get a G5 for a thousand bucks. Most of them would use OS X if the price is right. I use X11 and UNIX programs, it's EASY!

If software companies didn't offer upgrade pricing, would you be inclined to get these upgrades once a year or so, or would you wait?

And, I'm not talking about a commodity box, but a genuine, heavy gauge anodized aluminum box, just like we have now. There is nothing cheap about it.

To ffakr: I don't think that much expandability is important for most users either, most people I know never add a board to the slots, and Pc people I know with 8 slots never use them. The problem is perception. Remember the cube? It was more expandable and up-datable than most people knew, but one of the reasons that it didn't sell was because people thought that for the price it should have had more slots and room for two drives.

To CalfCanuck: I don't think that LINUX is the future, industry analysts think that it might be. The price I quoted was the amount that Apple got for the retail sales of the boxed copies of OS X, as they did when I bought 10.2 and 10.3 at their store here in NYC. Internal accounting is a very different matter as the costing is different. They charge themselves much less because the distribution costs are subsumed into the cost of the hardware, and packaging costs etc. are less. Not quite that simple but you get the point.

I don't think that as a retail product that it is a drag on Apple's finances, as in profit and loss as they are doing now. I think that it is a drag on Apple's potential finances, as in product sales.

I am only talking about sales, not operability. I agree that the OS is fine tuned to do what it does best. I'm not saying that Apple should get rid of it, just change the focus of their marketing of it. I don't know where you get any ideas that I want Apple to drop it.

To Rincewind42: I think that I addressed most of your comment about price, but remember that retailers stock many programs for $29, and $39 as well. The R&D costs to produce the OS will, I believe, not bear any direct relation to the selling price of it. What is the OS worth in an eMac selling to a school for $650? The OS is priced the way Microsoft prices theirs. What do we think this is worth, and how much can we get? Is XP home Edition worth $199(other than what we feel as Mac users, of course).

Apple is still a hardware company. All the fine(REALLY fine) software it sells, is there to sell hardware. Sometimes it sells (and gives away) cross platform software as well, such as Appleworks and Filemaker. But this is mostly because they need to be cross platform to sell these products at all, and they need to sell the software to sell the hardware, so we are back there again. A good example is iTunes. MusicMatch sells their software, Apple doesn't. What is it worth? It sells tunes, but Steve says that they don't really make any money there. So? To sell iPods. They make money there. But not that much. They make far more selling 730,00 computers than the same number if iPods. But people who use iTunes, and perhaps buy an iPod are primed to think Apple. Think Apple, maybe think Mac. There we go.

NNO-Stephen
Jan 24, 2004, 06:42 PM
wow, that was long. I would like Apple to consider a smaller mini-tower with a single G5 in it and resign the dual G5 systems as pro systems... I just doubt we'll see it. maybe work it up to something like this

pro:

dual G5
3 HD bays
2 optical drive bays
5 PCI-X slots
8 RAM Slots
2x FW 800
2x FW 400
4x USB 2.0
Gigabit Ethernet
some other junk

prosumer:

single G5
2 HD bays
1 optical drive bay
2 PCI-X slots
1 PCI slot
4 RAM slots
1 FW 800
2 FW 400
3 USB 2.0
10/100 Base-T Ethernet

make the 17" display price more competitive (500$?) and the base prosumer box itself about 1000 and the entry level pro box 2000+ and you've got a pretty sweet system right there.

aswitcher
Jan 24, 2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
wow, that was long. I would like Apple to consider a smaller mini-tower with a single G5 in it and resign the dual G5 systems as pro systems... I just doubt we'll see it. maybe work it up to something like this

SNIP

prosumer:

single G5
2 HD bays
1 optical drive bay
2 PCI-X slots
1 PCI slot
4 RAM slots
1 FW 800
2 FW 400
3 USB 2.0
10/100 Base-T Ethernet



I would buy that. I assume WiFi and Bluetooth would be at least an option if not standard. I would also be happy to see a decent graphics card or options as was suggested originally by melgross supporting dual screens.

Jason

aswitcher
Jan 24, 2004, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by melgross
Thanks for the comments.

To aswitcher:

SNIP

I still think that the current iMacs have run most of their course.

> I agree its not looking good

SNIP

Linux is not a threat "decades in the future". It is beginning to become a threat now. It might be fun to be a Mac user (as I am) and shrug off anything that we don't like as being inferior and unimportant, but it is not so. Analysis by IDG and others have shown trends that Linux might be the second largest desktop OS in less than five years. IBM is moving its desktops to LINUX. We are talking about 60,000. Other companies are are watching this. Governments are moving to LINUX, state as well as foreign. Big money is going into the ease of use problems.

> Yep


SNIP

Even with Mac users paying good prices for the hardware, there is anger at the pricing of the OS. Even Steve himself had to come out and say that it was worth it in response. Human nature is funny in that way.

> Yep. I know several who are getting annoyed at updating each year - feels like Microsoft. Now iLife has gone that way as well perhaps?

SNIP

As for LINUX users, if Mac users whine, why can't they? LINUX users buy hardware just like we do. Sometimes expensive stuff. That doesn't mean that they want to pay over $100 every 14 months or so for an updated OS. I know a number of LINUX users who buy used G3's or G4's for $500 to $1,000, and then put Yellow Dog LINUX on it. They don't have to buy an Apple LCD, as I pointed out, they could get a $75 17" CRT, if they didn't already have one. Same thing with Powerbooks. Most of these guys would love to get a G5 for a thousand bucks. Most of them would use OS X if the price is right. I use X11 and UNIX programs, it's EASY!

> Interesting

If software companies didn't offer upgrade pricing, would you be inclined to get these upgrades once a year or so, or would you wait?

And, I'm not talking about a commodity box, but a genuine, heavy gauge anodized aluminum box, just like we have now. There is nothing cheap about it.
[QUOTE]

Well not cheap, but cheaper than existing PowerMacs and aimed at replacing the iMac... Yep, I think its got soem legs but final price point would tell. I hope a completly redesigned iMac G5 featuring many of these ideas - like headless to allow chaper purchase and later upgrades - will happen...

Jason

bonehead
Jan 24, 2004, 11:07 PM
Could it be that Apple is not making a big deal of the Mac's birthday because they don't feel it will help them sell more computers? Will saying, "We've been making these things for 20 years" inspire anyone to go out and buy a Mac? Most people are aware of Macs already and I think what would cause someone to switch would be the features, software, ease of use, etc. rather than the history of the product. Someone pointed out earlier that Apple made no big deal of its 25th anniversary so maybe they won't now. That said, I hope they do.

yamabushi
Jan 24, 2004, 11:59 PM
I willl just say that I find this announcement of a 970FX @1.4GHz to be exciting as it brings hope that the G5 will find a home inside some kind of Mac besides the tower.

wizard
Jan 25, 2004, 02:00 AM
Professional or not one thing that has become obvious to me is that the smart money is on the purchase of computer hardware that is near the top of the performance curve. Current hardware has a very short life, what one thought was enough at the time of purcahse can be quickly turned into a slug when new software is load on the machine.

Even this is somewhat dependant on your profession, but I can tell you that the performance demand for some software professional packages continue to escalate. It is almost like your required to purchase new hardware with the software.

Frankly I do believe it will be a while before software stops driving hardware requirements. When that does happen there will probally be a massive recession in the industry.

Dave


Originally posted by dachshund
Maybe you missed that my intention was to break up the relation between need of high-performance desktop computing and profession. But if you define your profession as gaming on your mac then you might be right.

dachshund
Jan 25, 2004, 04:54 AM
Hi wizard,

I think you're right with your arguments concerning a subset of all software, but IMHO you missed one point:
What I implicitly wanted to say is: What has really changed in the last - let's say - 5 years? Most people are still writing email browsing the web, write letters and then - dependent on their profession - do whatever they need to do. But mainly you need more performance because the industry makes you need more. In many cases it's NOT yourself it's just the software that eats up performance and memory space like hell and for what benefit?!
To be more precisely now: What are the big improvements in computing in the last years? Don't tell me now that Video and image editing is easy-going the faster your computer is. That's trivial. Everybody tells you you need a new computer almost every second year that's not true. Most people buy new computers because they like the edge and they're keen on the technology for ideological reasons. That's okay!
The recession you mentioned could also rise when people check out that they need not to be on the technology edge but what they really need is a tool that fulfills their practical needs. I give an example typical for mac users to corroborate my arguments:
Have a look on Dreamweaver MX 2004. I don't see one feature that's really making me demand a new computer. In fact Dreamweaver 2004 is mainly Dreamweaver 4 but has a nicer GUI. I don't want to start a Dreamweaver threat now but every Website designer can do his job with Dreamweaver 4. Claiming anything else sounds artificial to me.

That's all, folks.

dachshund
Jan 25, 2004, 05:45 AM
addendum

What I wanted to say is: If you stay with your old software for some years then you don't have to upgrade all along your hardware. In many cases there is little or no improvement in new software.
Would anybody buy a new tv if it could switch a little faster betwenn channels? Maybe some people would but there is no need for it.

The key enhancement in computing are IMHO:

1) the GUI Stanford invented and Apple adapted
2) multimedia capabilities
3) memory protection to prevent crashes
4) network capabilities including www support etc.

Where is the next huge clou then? When the MIT might be successful in their project developing new user interaction interfaces. That might cause a revolution.

Skiniftz
Jan 25, 2004, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by dachshund
addendum

What I wanted to say is: If you stay with your old software for some years then you don't have to upgrade all along your hardware. In many cases there is little or no improvement in new software.
Would anybody buy a new tv if it could switch a little faster betwenn channels? Maybe some people would but there is no need for it.
You are ignoring human desire though. By only purchasing neccessary items, the clothing / art / and ornament industries would go out of business.

I agree with what you are saying; often one can make do with what one has, however it's a natural instinct to improve on one's situation.

dachshund
Jan 25, 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Skiniftz
You are ignoring human desire though. By only purchasing neccessary items, the clothing / art / and ornament industries would go out of business.

I agree with what you are saying; often one can make do with what one has, however it's a natural instinct to improve on one's situation.

As I told somewhere above Most people buy new computers because they like the edge and they're keen on the technology for ideological reasons. That's okay!
I just wanted to stop people from equating profession and need for performance. Though I also intended to criticize those who feel coerced (!) themselves to buy new hardware. I think I got your point of view and I can agree with that (putting that "you ignore..." aside).

chinamac
Jan 25, 2004, 08:39 AM
Well articulated and thoughtful comments running through the last page.

Read some commentator on Mercury News (can't find it now) that MS's clients are not end users, but are the hardware manufacturers. For the HW manufacturers like Dell, Compaq and IBM, they love to have heavier and heavier OS and other software to force end-users to upgrade. MS is happy to oblige, of course.

For Mac users, we are in somewhat better shape. Have OS X installed on a 600 iBook and it runs fine, absolutely. Seems like the application software side does get into this creeping incrementalism, however. Whatever the case, as a practical matter, seems Macs do retain usefulness much longer.

Snowy_River
Jan 25, 2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by dachshund
I just wanted to stop people from equating profession and need for performance. Though I also intended to criticize those who feel coerced (!) themselves to buy new hardware. I think I got your point of view and I can agree with that (putting that "you ignore..." aside).

But, I think that the equating of profession with the need for performance is not an artificial one. I work with a 3D CAD package, and high performance hardware equates to less time spent in the design process waiting for the computer to processing a change to a complex part, or rendering a presentation drawing. And, of course, in this kind of work time is money.

dachshund
Jan 25, 2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
But, I think that the equating of profession with the need for performance is not an artificial one. I work with a 3D CAD package, and high performance hardware equates to less time spent in the design process waiting for the computer to processing a change to a complex part, or rendering a presentation drawing. And, of course, in this kind of work time is money.

As I already repeated you have undoubtly the need for the fastest computer available or affordable whatever may apply best. We are talking here about the generality and neither you nor anybody else can deterine the need for computing power of every professional user, can you? I'm already repeating my repetition when I tell you that equating profession and need for a fast computer is no term that can be applied in general but is very often used this way. So what's professional anyway? Does a professional always need a fast computer? Are people who demand fast computers the only professionals you can imagine? Is this difference so hard to understand?

Snowy_River
Jan 25, 2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by dachshund
As I already repeated you have undoubtly the need for the fastest computer available or affordable whatever may apply best. We are talking here about the generality and neither you nor anybody else can deterine the need for computing power of every professional user, can you? I'm already repeating my repetition when I tell you that equating profession and need for a fast computer is no term that can be applied in general but is very often used this way. So what's professional anyway? Does a professional always need a fast computer? Are people who demand fast computers the only professionals you can imagine? Is this difference so hard to understand?

Oh, certainly not, but that's not what you said. You said that need for power shouldn't be equated with profession. That's very different than saying that need for power shouldn't be equated with being a professional. All that I was saying was that there are certain professions that do need power, else they become noncompetitive.

I certainly don't assert that all professionals need the fastest hardware. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'd say that most professional don't. But professionals in certain professions, in general, do. Hence, equating the need for power with certain professions is legitimate.

mrwheet
Jan 25, 2004, 11:56 AM
dachshund,

In general, you're right that the average user hasn't really needed a hardware upgrade for about 5 years. However, in the audio/music world, there are a number of applications which simply could not exist without the incredible advances in hardware performance we've seen during this same period. Three good examples: all convolution reverbs, all physical modeling instruments, and Celemony's Melodyne. For the most part, these products are based on technologies (or theories) that have been known about for 30, 40, even 50 years (and probably longer...), but the hardware was simply too slow to realize them... even in the lab, to say nothing of the "average" user. So I think, in some instances, the situation is actually opposite to what you're suggesting; it's not that software is driving hardware, exactly, but rather that CPU speeds have reached a sort of "escape velocity" whereby a great many ideas that were once only mathematical theories are becoming commercially viable as software packages. This has made for a very exciting time in the audio world -- I think the same can be said for video. I mean, who can really say that the average home-video maker doesn't "need" compositing, or real time effects? I think the point is that in these particular disciplines, it is incredibly difficult to evaluate "need" -- the whole point is to explore possibilities... even those you don't really understand. And that's where contemporary CPU power has been the deciding factor. As someone a little way up the thread stated -- there are actually many things you simply _can't_ do without the necessary CPU and RAM...

dachshund
Jan 25, 2004, 12:09 PM
it's useless to explain furthermore. You're making assumptions about implications I did not make.

I am just leaving this discussion now.

dachshund
Jan 25, 2004, 12:14 PM
Besides Snowy_River is in his post from 06:44 PM exactly of the opinion I tried to defend in many many posts now.

mrwheet
Jan 25, 2004, 12:42 PM
sorry, you've misunderstood... probably a "black and white" thing -- no tone-of-voice in text...
I'm not attacking or supporting any point you were trying to make. I work at a used mac sales and repairs shop. We see a great many "professionals" who are not in need of high-end systems -- as you said, writers, teachers, even some programmers who buy little ol' pb 3400s for writing code, then compile at work. Your point was not missed, and I'm sorry I didn't clarify that...
I was merely responding with my enthusiasm for the possibilities that high-end machines have opened up. No more, no less. I think, possibly, the next turn of events we'll see will be a greater focus on optimization of code... I suspect that many of the "miracles" produced by current software could probably be handled with much less overhead.... but I could be wrong!
I was also thinking recently about the whole issue of OS X being too beautiful for its own good -- you know, the PC user's argument that it's just slow and pretty -- all gloss and glitter and wasted clock cycles. Anyway, it occured to me that what Apple is probably really after is a desktop environment which gradually melds with the physical reality of people's homes. So that these high res icons and such are not there simply to be "pretty", but are helping to integrate the computer with people's physical, palpable lives... Once again, this beauty comes at a cost, and quite a high one at that, in terms of "performance". However, the "sluggishness" of OS X on a biege G3 suddenly disappears on a G5 dual 2. This is something I get all the time at the mac store -- people want to run OS X because... well, just because... and they often won't say it, but it's because it's _beautiful_, and a pleasure to work on! And when you spend 4 - 8 hours at the computer a day, that's a totally legitimate reason! To run OS X well, you need more juice - plain and simple. I've often thought about the cumulative anxiety that we must suffer from those little "waits" -- fractions of a second at the most -- but in no way insignificant.
Anyway, nobody should be offended. I'm not refuting anybody's points, just thinking out loud about what a cool time it is to being reaping the benefits of a technology which is finally reaching maturity... With any luck, the next thing to go will be the desktop paradigm itself.

melgross
Jan 25, 2004, 01:45 PM
You guys would be surprised as to what some consider as being "Professional".

I use Final Cut Pro fairly regularly, but in the field, on location, a lot of guys use iMovie on a Powerbook to edit the dailies! For that purpose, iMovie is much better. It's easier, which is always important. It also consumes less resources on the machine, which is more critical in a portable situation.

Another "Professional" ap is iPhoto. This is for the continuity photos. Those are important to a film's realism.

One more is Toast. This is VERY popular, as CD's and DVD's are always being cut in these situations. Very often this is how the dailies are sent to the office by Fed-Ex, private courier etc.

So, what does "Professional" really mean?

Whatever you use in your "Profession".

yamabushi
Jan 25, 2004, 05:39 PM
I use speech recognition software but the accuracy is still poor. More accuracy would require more complex and demanding software that would need much more powerful hardware. Perhaps someday IBM will release a new generation of such software that can run on a powerful system such as a dual 2.0GHz G5 with 2GB of RAM. If the accuracy was better than 99% I would buy the software as soon as it was released and a new PowerMac to run it on.

Plutoniq
Jan 25, 2004, 06:14 PM
I know this thread is about the 970FX...... but I'm curious to where IBM's 750GX is? It was supposed to go into production in December, as stated in IBM's roadmap.... but of course that has come and gone. The G3, while non-existent in Apple's from here on out, is still very applicable to use in existing Mac upgrades.

Perhaps IBM decided to move the 750GX down to a 90nm core along with the 970FX? Considering the 750GX @ 130nm could reach 1.1ghz (8W), perhaps with a die size reduction it could clock similiar speeds to Intel's Pentium M series? The G3, while lacking SIMD, still is a very highly refined CPU...... Clocks fast without breaking it's 5-stage pipeline trend.......and currentley the only PowerPC with 1mb of 1:1 L2 cache.

stingerman
Jan 25, 2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Plutoniq
I know this thread is about the 970FX...... but I'm curious to where IBM's 750GX is? It was supposed to go into production in December, as stated in IBM's roadmap.... but of course that has come and gone. The G3, while non-existent in Apple's from here on out, is still very applicable to use in existing Mac upgrades.

Perhaps IBM decided to move the 750GX down to a 90nm core along with the 970FX? Considering the 750GX @ 130nm could reach 1.1ghz (8W), perhaps with a die size reduction it could clock similiar speeds to Intel's Pentium M series? The G3, while lacking SIMD, still is a very highly refined CPU...... Clocks fast without breaking it's 5-stage pipeline trend.......and currentley the only PowerPC with 1mb of 1:1 L2 cache.

The question is why would you have a 750GX when you can have a 970FX for the same price or cheaper. IBM can print out nearly twice as many 90NM's on one of those large Wafers and Apple odering even more 970's would drive the prices even lower. IMO, there is no reason to create a 750GX. The 970FX will become the staple processor, IMO, with Speed and other features such as SMP among other things to differentiate the line. Anything else would only add to Apple's expense and for no good reason.

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Not really the G4 at 1.33GHz is running max at 30-45W depending on the chip 74x5/74x7, version number, and the core voltage. Plus the rest of the numbers seem to be single CPUs.

So the single 130nm PPC970 may very well have been cranking out 97W @ 2.0GHz -- just seems quite high when Motorola was always talking about their 10W G4s.

I_am_Andrew posted this MAXIMUM POWER chart at ARS (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9080959175&r=55000975857#55000975857)... and if you follow the discussion, Apple may have swapped a couple numbers.

These graphs are the maximum thermal design power are so are misleading to use in a comaparison, you cant reach this number even at MAX load.

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 06:35 AM
And why is IBM making a comparison to the Itanium 2 in terms of power consumption. Itanium 2 is a workstation chip and the G5 is not. Show the power 5 as well in the chart.

jj2003
Jan 26, 2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by army_guy
And why is IBM making a comparison to the Itanium 2 in terms of power consumption. Itanium 2 is a workstation chip and the G5 is not. Show the power 5 as well in the chart.

Hmmm... What makes Itanium 2 a workstation chip and G5 not? How do you define a workstation anyway, I guess the defination will be as clear as Apple's defination of personal computer. :)

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by stingerman
In practice they matter a lot less than you would have us believe. Look ahead algorithms minimize and in many cases circumvent latency factors altogether. And, yes a faster bus does minimize latency issues. Too, the G5 bus is Switched with out-of-band management, which is much faster than the shared busses and contention slowdowns of the XEON systems.

Another factor affecting performance is bandwidth and the G5 architecture has greater bandwidth. So when you are dealing with larger data sets, latency is a much smaller component of the performance equation. Apple has designed the G5 to perform very well on multimedia applications, including photos, videos and music. Transferring large textures for 3-D realtime graphics greatly benefits as well.

So to simply speak of latency as the driver behind performance is misleading. I believe that the G5 has the best balance of Latency, Bandwidth and bus frequency for an overall faster system. Couple that with IBM's advanced look ahead algorithms and it isn't an issue at all.

Yes the G5 has good bandwidth but latency is still important. Opteron has a max bandwidth of 6.4GB/s x 2 assuming the OS is NUMA aware, however in real world in manages around 5.5-6.0 GB/s. Couple 12.8GB/s with ultra low latency and you have awsome momory peformance.

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by jj2003
Hmmm... What makes Itanium 2 a workstation chip and G5 not? How do you define a workstation anyway, I guess the defination will be as clear as Apple's defination of personal computer. :)

The G5 is not a workstation chip/computer, all the features and advantages of a workstation are not part of the G5. IBM would not be producing the G5 if it was classed as a workstation as it has the POWER series.

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 06:47 AM
WHAT A BASIC workstation is.


1) Expandability.
2) Internal RAID capability at least 1 and or 5.
3) Use of ECC/Registered Memory.

Iam not critisising the G5, not at all its a good machine for the market its aimed for but it is a HIGH END PC not a workstation.

The G5 is however not suitable for everyone and has limitations some serious some not and so does OS X and Apples own choice only to allow OS X to run only on the G5/apple machines.

These are my own personal grips with the G5/OS X/Apple as too why the MACS are not suitable for ME. These are not complaints they are things iam pointing out to all those saying anyone can SWITCH.

1) Cant run my collection of PC games.
2) Cant run 3D studiomax and Softimage.
3) No MS Visio, MS office yes but when writting technical reports Visio is the tool I use for the diagrams/schematics.
4) Unable to use a Linux distribution to run EDA tools such as MENTOR/CADENCE. Iam pushing it here!!! whose gona want to run EDA tools on a MAC.

5) No room for more hard drives, weres my RAID 5.
6) What about my AGP 110 card, WILDCAT 7210.
7) My ECC memory. Errors do happen, no one wants errors period.
8) Unable to upgrade systems (CPUS etc....)

All of you people say x86 is dead and here we have MENTOR/CADENCE/SYNOPSIS releasing $15k-$500k+ tools for LINUX x86 with Opteron now following (64-bit applications).

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by ffakr
Where exactly is the trolling?
They guy comes in here and says 'I've looked at Opteron and 970 (in G5) and the Opteron is better for my work.. yet the G5 is better at multimedia'

Does any one here argue with the fact that the Opteron's on die memory controller has less latency than systems that still use a Northbridge? The guys code lives and dies on memory access. Opteron has an advantage. That's not a trol, it's life.

The 970 has a higher theoretical IPC, it has lots of bandwidth, but it isn't the fastest processor for every task under the sun. Opteron/Athlon64 is an excellent cpu. My next machine will be a G5 (not an upgrade to my Athlon) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want an Athlon64 also. :-)

As for Big Mac... It's a cluster. It is a relatively loosely coupled machine (even though infiniband is pretty damn fast). It's going to run the code that people bench clusters with very fast... code that runs parallel well... calculations that can be broken into discrete 'chunks'. From what Tortoise is saying, The G5 would indeed work fabulous for calculations where you are more concerned about parallelism than the ability of every CPU to access memory as fast as possible. If you are that memory bound, you will probably have issues with achieving enough parallelism anyway.

Tortoise, I'm curious.. are you benching the individual systems? Like a dual Opteron vs. a dual G5.. where you are dealing with a shared memory pool for the processors? Or do you see a significant advantage in clusters where each node only has a memory advantage to their local memory pools?

just curious.
Ffakr.

I agree with some of your points, the no 3 supercomputer is no3 in terms of processing performance, somehow they have forgoten the memory bandwidth is the number 1 factor when building a supercomputer (ask CRAY) and the G5 does not have that. A supercomputer (CRAY T1, X1 etc...) and a cluster are 2 very different things. Memory is handled 1000X more effectively in a SC were as a clustor chokes under the load.

Just been looking at some CRAY X1 (X2 is on the way) specs, thier impressive to say the least, they have quite a few slides on SC interesting reading. Whats interesting is that the cost of a cluster ends up being MORE EXPENSIVE based on a usage of say 5 years. More expensive in terms of power consumption, node counts, effieciency at peak operation with higher node counts, replacement of faulty components, downtime.

What scares me is Redstorm 10'000 Opteron 2xx series CPUS with CRAY interconnects. The CRAY X1 interconnects shift 50GB/s sustained and thier a few years old. The line between a SC and a clustor will be blured when CRAY releases this.

dke
Jan 26, 2004, 07:38 AM
I've been doing computers for 25+ years, and am really curious on that "not a workstation" processor thing? What would qualify that for you?

Certainly, the Power5 is a higher end workstation. But that doesn't mean the 970 isn't. IBM usually has a spread of workstations that go from their lower end single chip solutions (604's and variants) up to their multi-chip solutions (Power2, 3, 4, and 5). But that doesn't mean their single chip solutions weren't workstations. Compare the 970, and it is faster than anything on the planet of just a few years ago.

There are many workstations (Sun especially) that were not very expandable. Pizza boxes with 1 or no slots were popular workstations. So expandability is not the issue. And the G5's are highly expandable.

Internal RAID is certainly not a qualifier, most workstations have not have internal RAIDs (see above). But I can certainly do RAID 0 or RAID 1 on a G5. And you can actually shoehorn more drives in and do RAID 5 if you wanted. Personally, I think a SAN (as in FibreChannel XRAID) would make a much better RAID solution than trying to shoehorn one inside the machine anyways, and you can service many machines.

ECC is certainly NOT a requirement. I've known many workstations that did not support that, though it is common.

Besides, all those things would qualify a XServe as a workstation, yet the G5 is not?!? But the discussion was about the 970 -- not the box it is put in. The facts are the 970 can support all those things.

So what makes the 970 less a workstation class processor than one that is beneath it?

For me, a workstation is a function of the software and usage of what you're doing -- not just how many slots it has, what kind of RAM it uses, or your storage subsystem choices.

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 07:44 AM
I said a basic workstation. those SUN pizza boxes usually run on the distributed network so their an exception. Iam probably being to critical about these points but I was referening to the Apple G5 not the 970 specifically. I should of been more clear. It takes alot more than $2999 for me to build a machine for which I can call a workstation, ive had no complaints from people who dont even blink to spend $5000-$7000 on a machine.

dke
Jan 26, 2004, 11:01 AM
Maybe you don't like bargains.... :-)

Seriously, by the time you buy a dual processor version, with two drive (so you can RAID), and put some serious RAM in it, you're at a lot more than a couple thousand. I think I was at $3500 for one I built up recently. Then you have to talk software.

But the point still is that for many things the G5 will outperform the Itanic or P4 or Athlons, and you can definitely get workstation class performance out of one. I was getting "workstation class" performance out of PPC-601's or 68000's a few years ago. Prices and setups may vary. I do agree Apple is more limited on choice/variety, and you may want something that you can't get easily the way Apple's bundled them. But saying "it's not a workstation" is sort of derisive and narrow minded.

dke
Jan 26, 2004, 11:17 AM
1) Cant run my collection of PC games.

I don't consider games the decision making factor in workstations. But the facts are that you can run many of the same games. But if you need a gaming "workstation"; sure, a PC has more choices.

2) Cant run 3D studiomax and Softimage.

I don't run those. But there are plenty of 3D and rendering packages for the Macs. If you are only willing to run one package and not consider others, then sure, stay on your platform. That doesn't mean that plenty of others aren't using it for workstation stuff because the packages they chose worked fine for them.

3) No MS Visio, MS office yes but when writting technical reports Visio is the tool I use for the diagrams/schematics.

I use OmniGraffle which has better presentation and seems faster (and imports Visio files). Honestly, I haven't done a competitive evaluation -- but there are choices out there, if you want to look.

4) Unable to use a Linux distribution to run EDA tools such as MENTOR/CADENCE. Iam pushing it here!!! whose gona want to run EDA tools on a MAC.

First it is not MAC, that's an address. It is Mac (not an acronym). This is the equivalent of me claiming to know PC's and calling them "those electronic thingy's".

There are plenty of LINUX distros on the Mac. But usually when I'm setting up LINUX stuff, I'd be setting up a server -- not a workstation. We were discussing workstations, remember?

There are certainly cases where you might turn a machine into a turn-key workstation -- that's your choice. But for general productivity and running more than one thing, you generally want a UI that's a lot better than anything I've seen on LINUX.

5) No room for more hard drives, weres my RAID 5.

I use externals and SANs. They work better for the workgroup.

6) What about my AGP 110 card, WILDCAT 7210.

Yawn. We're going to play model wars now? Where's my one model of one card that will do one thing?

No one said the Mac (or G5) is better for everything, or that it will work for one configuration you setup. But calling it "not a workstation" is lame. Saying it isn't the right platform for you because of X, Y and Z requirements is more reasonable.

7) My ECC memory. Errors do happen, no one wants errors period.

Yawn. Detectable memory errors are like 1 in 50 years with ECC if you look at MTBF's. I don't know what the OS support is -- usually the machines just crash or freeze to prevent corrupt data. Big savings to me. (NOT!).

But if you do need it, just buy an XServe and XRAID and it has the ECC and RAID stuff, and in a better box (IMHO) -- and is even more in the price range you're targeting. ($5-10K is no problem).

8) Unable to upgrade systems (CPUS etc....)

That's Apple being stupid. So what? I've played the same game with PC's. Try to put an Athlon in a P4 bay, or try to upgrade. Facts are facts, most upgrades are VERY selective as to which processors they'll take, and 95% are never used. Busses change and so on. So having it upgradable means limiting its potential (by putting it in a machine that isn't design for the new optimum). That's why most people don't upgrade...


[[All of you people say x86 is dead and here we have MENTOR/CADENCE/SYNOPSIS releasing $15k-$500k+ tools for LINUX x86 with Opteron now following (64-bit applications).]]

I've never said that x86 is dead. I think it is a lame architecture that they've done a FANTASTIC job of dragging forward far longer than it deserved to be. Who thought a 35 year old ISA would still be hanging around. But hey, the damn things still work, and they've bolted enough cruft and new modes on that it works decent -- and I don't think it is going anywhere. But that's a testemant to mans sloth and laziness, not to engineering quality. Cest la vie (such is life)....

wizard
Jan 26, 2004, 11:53 AM
You have here in other posts put forth some interesting comments. Some of the topics I've talk about my self in the past. but I do have a few counter points to pass on.

First the chip in question is the 970, G5 is Apples implementation of the chip in a tower. The 970 is as capable as any other processor for work station level implementations. Maybe not the highest peformance workstation but none the less all of the accepted features.

I tend to agree very strongly with your concerns about expanadbility and frankly don't understand why so many are so foolish as to allow the marketing program to scramble their brains. For the markets that the G5 was targeted at it simply does not have enough space internaly for storage device. So in a sense I disagree with you, it really isn't even a good implementation for a high end PC, storage expansion is critical here.

As to the statements on the OS, well that is realy garbage. If you don't like OS/X there is always Linux. Linux is certianly a workstation class OS. As to some of the listed software it makes me think that maybe all you really need is a three year old PC and not a workstation. If so just wait for MS to come out with their PC emulator.

Video graphics support does suck on the Mac platform. Hopefully Apple is aware of that and is addressing the problem.

As to the issue with Engineering level software this is and always has been an issue with Apple hardware. It is rather a big shame too. But I would not use the lack of support here as an argument against calling the G5 a workstation. The workstation type applications that do run on the G5 just aren't the mainstream engineering applications. With the advent of OS/X, Apples X-Windows subsystem and the 970 I would not be surprised to find that Apple is trying to facilitate ports. Now this may not help you personally now but it does open more "workstation" markets.



I geuss what I'm trying to say is that the G5 implementation does have a lot of issues as far as being a machine that professionals can respond to. Some of these Apple could easly address if it wanted to. The problem though is not the 970 itself, which is a bit rediculous to suggest, but the implementation. The G5 implementation though does serve a subset of the workstation market. It is a different subset then what you are familiar with but none the less a market.

The question becomes then does Apple have any intention of releasing a workstation level machine. To be honest I thought that a big brother to XServe, the rumored 3U server, would have made an excellent workstation given the right expandability. That machine has yet to see the light of day. I like the thought of a combo server workstation implementation because frankly the dedicated "workstation" market is going to disappear, the writing is on the wall here. So one has to wonder where Apple stands with respect to the high performance computing market.

Thanks
dave


Originally posted by army_guy
WHAT A BASIC workstation is.


1) Expandability.
2) Internal RAID capability at least 1 and or 5.
3) Use of ECC/Registered Memory.

Iam not critisising the G5, not at all its a good machine for the market its aimed for but it is a HIGH END PC not a workstation.

The G5 is however not suitable for everyone and has limitations some serious some not and so does OS X and Apples own choice only to allow OS X to run only on the G5/apple machines.

These are my own personal grips with the G5/OS X/Apple as too why the MACS are not suitable for ME. These are not complaints they are things iam pointing out to all those saying anyone can SWITCH.

1) Cant run my collection of PC games.
2) Cant run 3D studiomax and Softimage.
3) No MS Visio, MS office yes but when writting technical reports Visio is the tool I use for the diagrams/schematics.
4) Unable to use a Linux distribution to run EDA tools such as MENTOR/CADENCE. Iam pushing it here!!! whose gona want to run EDA tools on a MAC.

5) No room for more hard drives, weres my RAID 5.
6) What about my AGP 110 card, WILDCAT 7210.
7) My ECC memory. Errors do happen, no one wants errors period.
8) Unable to upgrade systems (CPUS etc....)

All of you people say x86 is dead and here we have MENTOR/CADENCE/SYNOPSIS releasing $15k-$500k+ tools for LINUX x86 with Opteron now following (64-bit applications).

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 01:12 PM
Beat the Itanium, ha ha you must be out of your mind!!

I tried the Itanium just for a laugh a few months back before I recieved my BLADE 2500, a correctly setup Itanium with the appropriate 64-bit drivers, OS and software crush's all 64-bit platforms including all of the POWER series. I did HSPICE simulations ranging from 512MB-6GB database sizes and the Itanium was faster than the SUN, and the POWER by roughly 15-20%.

Forgeting the cost for a moment Itanium is a good platform but but unfortunetly it has come too late and has delivered too little, companies using EDA software do not drop everything to upgrade to faster hardware regardless of the cost. Itanium does not have user demand and does not have many 64-bit applications apart from HSPICE (which Intel forced sysnopsis to make a 64-bit Itanium version) and some of the CADENCE tools.

A platform with no software support has no future regardless of cost or performance. Oh yeah the cost the cost its more than twice the cost up fully configured BLADE 2500.

Itanium is a joke and Intel should really scrap it and start a fresh, it takes software companies to much money and time to port software to Itanium and the performance gain is not thier and together with a high price tag doesnt justify the platform or the performance you get. Stability is OK at best but IMO it could be better.

daveL
Jan 26, 2004, 02:53 PM
Army_guy: On top of everything you said, which I agree with, the Itanium is so power hungry that you can't get anything close to the rack densities that you get with competing processors. As far as processing per cubic foot or processing per watt, the Itanium comes in dead last.

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 03:12 PM
OK, i was talking about Itanium as a workstation implementation.
I think Itanium requires at least a 4u if Iam not mistaken, then again as I said before, air cooling went obsolite long ago, server manufacturers are experimenting with liquid cooling for packing high power cpus into racks but ive seen nothing more.

Manufacturers are being so f##king lazy in implementing it, i mean you can move 200W ++ of in a water block less than 1u thick.

Even the G5 in a 1u rack mount would get very hot to say the least, although those nice fans will generate one heck of a racket as there very high pitched. its a server so noise wouldnt be a problem id worry about the temperatures.

To put things into perspective CRAY was using liquid cooling even in the early 90's geeshh.

dke
Jan 26, 2004, 03:24 PM
Liquid cooling adds cost, complexity, reliability, weight and other things. It doesn't dissipate heat, it just helps move it. You still need a fan and radiator to dissipate it to the air. And it is more inneficient (you spend heat and power to move the heat somewhere else). Ultimately, it can be necessary, but if you don't need it, then don't use it.

(Also Cray used super-cooling systems, which are different than just liquid cooling that most are thinking of).

army_guy
Jan 26, 2004, 03:29 PM
yes the heat has to be dissipated by a radiator my mistake corrected above, reliability well depends on the pumps more pumps well redundancy. yes cray uses supercooling I think they cool the liquid below ambient and submerse components in the fluid, but its the same priciple only much cooler.

altaic
Jan 26, 2004, 04:11 PM
Hello all, this is the first time I've posted to this forum, however I've been reading it for a while. Actually, what prompted me to post was the torrent of misinformation from mr. army_guy.

1. the itaniums are server class processors, not workstation class processors. mark that the xeon is intel's workstation class, and pentium is the consumer class. the g5 is a more general workstation/server processor. it works well for both tasks.

2. the itanium was intel's failure, and came out far before both apple's and amd's 64bit implimentation. it's way overpriced and underpowered. the itanium 2 is decent and competes with the amd's opterons and the g5, although the opterons usually have the advantage. the g5 and opteron also support 32bit execution, where the itaniums do not. the intel and amd platforms, however, do scale up farther in number of processors. However, a dual processor system (intel, amd, or apple) makes a respectable server, cluster node, or workstation.

3. unless you are doing development, games have nothing to do with a workstation. even then you have test systems which match the spec of your customers, i.e. consumer-class computers. for instance, one can spend 10k on a decent rendering system for a workstation which would do very poorly with 3d games. the requirements are totally different, with games placing a high priority on a short (real-time) rendering pipeline.

It's fine to say these systems do not meet your needs as a consumer or a professional, but please refrain from distorting the discussion with semi-facts/definitions.

Also, cray uses supercooling to bring the conductors to a superconductive state, thereby exponentially increasing the efficiency. pcs stay well away from that, and it has nothing to do with watercooling, except that one can usually have a much larger radiator than heatsink.

Back to topic, though... The facts about the heat disipation of the 970fx are sort of muddled. All of this is news to me, so by reading this thread and a couple others, it just looks like there's a small chance the processor will make it into a powerbook in a week.

Just wondering, though... Surely there has to be a ton of people out there in the manufacturing plants, and droves of hardware testers who would know of the immediate release of a powerbook g5. I mean, it's not a small task. Wouldn't it have been leaked that they are on the way?

And surely they wouldn't be shipping to stores already, right (referring to the price changes of the powerbooks in stores)? Usually apple announces a new product is ready to ship and then it actually ships at least a month later.

I was looking at a history of apple releases and it showed something like an 8 month period between the announcement of the g4 (or maybe it was the g3) powerbook and the actual finished product.

But my question is, how do we usually get the rumor info? Is it usually from the hardware plant, or the shipping agency, or from a dev guy, or a tester, or what?

I'm just wondering, 'cause it seems to me like there should be a lot more noise if it's a powerbook g5 release.

dke
Jan 26, 2004, 04:55 PM
Leaks vary greatly.

Most of them come from people in the marketing organization, thus things are pretty close to release. These people get the info sooner, and have to set price and marketing campaigns.

Some of them come from development. Those are sooner, but looser. They test many models that never make it to market, and often they are testing competing version of the same model. And in manufacturing, they might trim out a feature or two.

Fewer of them still come from outside sources. Apple seeds some people with hardware (DVT seeds). The thing is that if you use those seeds, you usually have a strong reason for them, so are going to be extra-careful not to leak and lose your license. Getting seeds is a competitive advantage and worth a lot to your organization; so most have tighter security than Apple themselves.

Apple outsources manufacturing of many lines. Sometimes they leak. They have less vested interest in keeping the secret; especially if Apple put out competitive bids and the other guy won it. Again, they don't want to lose the business, but Asia is not really known for keeping industrial secrets. These leaks are usually fairly near release.

Some of them come from Apple as misinformation or test marketing. I doubt many, but companies chase leaks a variety of ways. A common one is to leak different "official" documents into different channels, with slightly different specs, and then see which specs make it to the rumors (to figure out what you need to plug). Or there's games with the competition or politics, etc.

Snowy_River
Jan 26, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by altaic
... Actually, what prompted me to post was the torrent of misinformation from mr. army_guy....

I'm impressed that you can even read what he's written. I managed to wade through a couple of his posts before I got to the point of deciding that it was too much work to try to decode his poor grammer and typing.

... Surely there has to be a ton of people out there in the manufacturing plants, and droves of hardware testers who would know of the immediate release of a powerbook g5....

Would it be worth your job to you to leek info about the new PB if you worked at Apple? Not only loosing your job, you might also find yourself at the wrong end of a law suite. So, given the degree to which Apple works to keep a lid on things, I'm not at all surprized that info doesn't leek too much...

splashman
Jan 26, 2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm impressed that you can even read what he's written. I managed to wade through a couple of his posts before I got to the point of deciding that it was too much work to try to decode his poor grammer and typing.

Would it be worth your job to you to leek info about the new PB if you worked at Apple? Not only loosing your job, you might also find yourself at the wrong end of a law suite. So, given the degree to which Apple works to keep a lid on things, I'm not at all surprized that info doesn't leek too much...

I had a little trouble wading through your post, but I think I've translated it:

"grammer" = grammar
"leek" = leak
"loosing" = losing
"law suite" = lawsuit
"surprized" = surprised
"leek" = leak, again

Knowing that there are plenty of posters here whose first language is not English, I tend to cut everyone a lot of slack. I suggest you do the same, at least until your own skills improve. :)

Snowy_River
Jan 26, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by splashman
I had a little trouble wading through your post, but I think I've translated it:

"grammer" = grammar
"leek" = leak
"loosing" = losing
"law suite" = lawsuit
"surprized" = surprised
"leek" = leak, again

Knowing that there are plenty of posters here whose first language is not English, I tend to cut everyone a lot of slack. I suggest you do the same, at least until your own skills improve. :)

Point taken. Typos happen. ;)

FWIW, I try to cut people slack, too. I just draw the line when I have to read what they wrote several times just to figure out what they're trying to say. (And that line is simply my choice not to try to read their posts any more. It's not really meant to be a jab against them. However, I can see that how I phrased things it might have come across that way...)

splashman
Jan 26, 2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Point taken. Typos happen. ;)

FWIW, I try to cut people slack, too. I just draw the line when I have to read what they wrote several times just to figure out what they're trying to say. (And that line is simply my choice not to try to read their posts any more. It's not really meant to be a jab against them. However, I can see that how I phrased things it might have come across that way...)

Fair enough. Thanks for keeping things civil. I struggle with that a lot myself.