PDA

View Full Version : ISSCC 2004: IBM on PowerPC 970FX


MacRumors
Feb 17, 2004, 08:36 AM
This IDG news article (http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/16/hnpowerdown_1.html) provides some very limited coverage if IBM's PowerPC presentation yesterday at the International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) 2004.

This particular article offers very few details, but does confirm a 2.5GHz rated PowerPC 970FX from IBM. According to senior technical staff member at IBM:

IBM's 2.5GHz PowerPC 970FX will dissipate about 50 watts of power during typical use, down from 66 watts consumed by its PowerPC 970 predecessor at a lower clock speed

Apple is using the PowerPC 970FX (at 2.0 GHz) in their Xserve G5s, and will presumably use the new processor in upcoming PowerMac revisions. More coverage of IBM's Monday presentation will be posted as available. IBM will also presenting information on the PowerTune technology on Wednesday February 18th.

ph8te
Feb 17, 2004, 08:41 AM
Is it not wonderful when so much is in the pipeline. Soon we will be inundated by new products and our choices will be limitless

phonic pol
Feb 17, 2004, 08:42 AM
Powermac updates here we come! What's the bets on early March?:p

Mr. Anderson
Feb 17, 2004, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by ph8te
Is it not wonderful when so much is in the pipeline. Soon we will be inundated by new products and our choices will be limitless

Limitless? What are you talking about here? There's always something better coming along...

Its great that the 2.5 GHz uses less W than the previous version....makes you wonder if they could get even more out of it and keep the watts the same :D

D

Mudbug
Feb 17, 2004, 08:55 AM
good point - they've already made a rather incredible cooling system, so why worry so much about the wattage (heat dissipation) and worry more about sheer speed.

johnpaul191
Feb 17, 2004, 08:55 AM
well it said wednesday they will talk about powertune.... it's possible the Xserve chips are the chips capable of 2.5GHz but have been throttled down to 2.0GHz for heat reasons. that is if the rumors are true about powertune.....
*if* that's true, then new powermacs would just need a sufficient supply of these chips, and for the timing to be right for a release (low enough stock of the current models and whatnot). There were a lot of assumptions that the G5 case was able to cool a chip running much hotter than the 970/G5 currently in there.

whookam
Feb 17, 2004, 08:58 AM
Well it might not be the update that I want (PM!!!) but at least that frickin' awful iTunes/Pepsi front page has been replaced.

gwuMACaddict
Feb 17, 2004, 09:22 AM
mmmmm.... power mac upgrades... :drool:

:D

phonic pol
Feb 17, 2004, 09:26 AM
Looking at the article in question reference is made to apple releasing one updated powermac with the new 2.5 GHz chip. If this is the case then the G5 powermac lineup will not change much short of one speed bump and some price reductions on the dual 2.0 and 1.8 GHz. Perhaps even deleting the dual 1.8 and keeping the 1.6 so as to have more even gaps between the speeds! Perhaps this is the reason why the dual 1.8 was released late ’03 – to diminish current stocks? Just a thought.

numediaman
Feb 17, 2004, 09:30 AM
This week will be the week of the mini iPod (and probably next week, as well). This should clear the decks for some updates or new product introductions.

This year has been incredibly disappointing so far. First, no desktop or laptop introductions at MWSF (in retrospect, the XServe news was important, however). A new iLife at MWSF, but it turns out that both iMovie 4 and iDVD 4 are disasters (I'm glad to see GarageBand looks great). Nothing at the Super Bowl except a poorly executed Pepsi campaign. Has the Apple marketing team taken the first quarter off?

I like what I'm hearing from IBM -- but I wonder, why the slow pace of updates? Is Apple locked into a contract with Motorola that they can't get out of?

I'm also concerned about the state of Apple software introductions. All I'm hearing is bad news concerning new software: QuickTime 6.5 is withdrawn (for G5 users), iMovie & iDVD suck, and 10.3.3 is withdrawn because it makes 20" iMacs blow up (OK, I made that last part up).

Let's hope March is better.

wordmunger
Feb 17, 2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by phonic pol
Looking at the article in question reference is made to apple releasing one updated powermac with the new 2.5 GHz chip. If this is the case then the G5 powermac lineup will not change much short of one speed bump and some price reductions on the dual 2.0 and 1.8 GHz. Perhaps even deleting the dual 1.8 and keeping the 1.6 so as to have more even gaps between the speeds! Perhaps this is the reason why the dual 1.8 was released late ’03 – to diminish current stocks? Just a thought.

I think you might be overreading the article. "Expected" in this case probably refers to the fact that we're all expecting the 90 nm chips in new G5s. I doubt the writer has any inside information about how or when those chips will show up.

wordmunger
Feb 17, 2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by numediaman
it turns out that both iMovie 4 and iDVD 4 are disasters

I had heard about the problems with iDVD, but what's wrong with iMovie? I've only seen good reviews, mostly praising bug fixes from iMovie 3.

niall2
Feb 17, 2004, 09:41 AM
Surprised this one hasn't come up. I don't know the specs on the G4 in my Powerbook, but if you can drop the power to 50 Watts at 2.5 GHz how fast does the power/heat curve drop on these bad boys. When can we expect a 2 GHz G5 Powerbook?

a17inchFuture
Feb 17, 2004, 09:43 AM
Is it just me, or do PM updates seem like a really dumb idea?(EDIT: a slight exaggeration) If one takes into account the fact that they updated literally a few months ago, I think it is ridiculous for Apple users to be griping for new ones. I mean come on, i get chided for asking for new powerbook revisions on this forum.

Being the line of apple's that has been most recently updated, i sincerely hope they don't update again before powerbooks. Its a bit ridiculous, really, that people are so demanding as well. Sure, the uppermost model wasn't changed, but everything else was.

The powermac's are nowhere in need of updating as much as the PB's.

They still have G4's, remember?

Sure PM's are easier to update than PB's, but with apple, its one product every few months, and personally, I will be disappointed if we are made to wait so 200 mhz can be added to the top of the line.

Seems less worthy to me.

agreenster
Feb 17, 2004, 09:47 AM
Thinking about it, this seems right on track with Apple's traditional timetable. August was the original intro for the G5, 6-7 months later (march) is the 2.5 update, 5-6 months later (August) is the 3.0 update.

Makes sense to me.

Difference is, we are seeing huge speedbumps instead of those dinky ones we were used to seeing. To 2.5 from 2 is pretty large. Remember when 500mhz was as fast as any Mac you could get? Now thats the increments the processors are moving in every 6 months. Nice. Theorhetically, we could see 4-4.5ghz G5s (G6?) by Summer 2005 at the rate IBM and the PPC is growing.

robotrenegade
Feb 17, 2004, 09:48 AM
We need news about G5 PB!!!

cbatt
Feb 17, 2004, 09:53 AM
PowerMac upgrades? :(

PowerBook upgrades! :D

C'mon Apple, show us the love!

numediaman
Feb 17, 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by wordmunger
I had heard about the problems with iDVD, but what's wrong with iMovie? I've only seen good reviews, mostly praising bug fixes from iMovie 3.

I don't know whether the problem is iMovie itself, or the interface with iDVD. I'll admit, I don't have either because I am waiting on new G5s. But the problems have been dominating the Apple discussion boards since their introduction (discussions.info.apple.com). Threads with names like "IMovie 4 - worst update ever" are not encouraging (even taking into account that discussion boards tend to be negative because satisfied customers have no need to go to them).

One of the best "work arounds" I've heard is not exporting your iMovie to iDVD, but instead sharing using the DV Stream settings -- then bring that new file into iDVD. If you are considering upgrading to iLife 4, and plan to use either piece of software mentioned, I would strongly recommend looking at these boards so you will be familiar with the problems and work arounds.

At this point, I'm sure I will need to buy both DVD StudioPro and Final Cut Express if I want to successfully burn DVDs (using Toast is another option, of course).

My hope is that Apple will introduce 10.3.3, a new QuickTime, and iLife 4.1 in time for new G5s.

a17inchFuture
Feb 17, 2004, 10:03 AM
P.S., its been 154 days out of the average wait of 163 days for new pb's. Only nine more days til its reached the average. i ahve to say I am slightly disappointed in Apple. there last pb update came 8 months after the previous one, and this one is shaping up to be longer than average as well. That is pretty frickin' weak, as far as I am concerned.

So, literally, in a year and two months, Apple has managed to SQUEEZE less than 100 mhz more out of their processor for their high end pb. . . .

Wow, that is extremely impressive. oh wait, no, no it isn't impresive at all. Sure, they put out a completely new 15 inch version in september, but as far as I am concerned, those 15 inches shoudl ahv been aprt of the prior update in january. So in reality, we have had nothing but disappointments from apple in that regard.

Just put the goddamn pb updates out, and for crying out loud!! And they better be damn worthy updates,too. I don't want just 66 mhz more.

agreenster
Feb 17, 2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Is it just me, or do PM updates seem like a really dumb idea? ...I think it is ridiculous for Apple users to be griping for new ones.

Sure, the uppermost model wasn't changed, but everything else was.



I think whats the driving force is that the Mac hasnt been the FASTEST home computer in like, 10 years. So Mac enthusiasts really want to get to see a 3ghz G5, which could potentially actually be the fastest with all the new compilers and stuff. Plus, the primary purpose of a PowerMac is Power alone. Not portability or an all-in-one. POWER. So any time we see potential for MORE power (oh oh oh), we drool over it.

PowerBooks have had less of a driving force to be cutting egde, because lets face it, they're laptops and will never be true workstations. Innovations there are less about power and more about wireless network, form factor, LCD res, etc.

Though I would also like to see PBG5's, being a 3D animator, I care monumentally more about speed and performance. My 1ghz PB is perfect for what I need it for: portability, usability, etc. But I certainly dont use it for rendering or large scene animations.

Thats what my dual Xeon is for. But you see, I wont trade in my Xeon until I can see matched performance from a G5. THATS why we wants updates.

::side note::
The only update 2 months ago was with the 1.8 line, making it dual. Thats all. I wouldnt call it a revision. No new chips were introduced. 6 months for chip revision is common for the PM line.

phonic pol
Feb 17, 2004, 10:06 AM
Makes total sense to me that PM's are updated sooner than PB's - the powermac is apple's flagship line and provides the material to which the PC competition craps itself i.e. more business and more people like me switching! Bring on the heat!

HiRez
Feb 17, 2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by niall2
Surprised this one hasn't come up. I don't know the specs on the G4 in my Powerbook, but if you can drop the power to 50 Watts at 2.5 GHz how fast does the power/heat curve drop on these bad boys. When can we expect a 2 GHz G5 Powerbook? The last I heard, there was a 2.0 GHz 90nm G5 chip that can throttle back to 1.4 GHz (and anywhere in-between). Seems like this is the one they might use for a PowerBook. IIRC, at 2.0 GHz, it used something like 25-27 watts (probably maximum as opposed to typical, but still quite a lot for that form-factor), and at 1.4 GHz, people were speculating in the neighborhood of 12 watts. Personally, I'd rather have a dual 1.4 GHz G5 PowerBook than a single 1.4-2.0, but that's just me. That's probably doable in the 17", but tricky in the 15", and almost impossible in the 12". Plus there are still power issues with the current memory and system controllers that are probably helping to hold up a portable G5 design. Getting a 90nm G5 into a PowerBook certainly looks promising, but there's a lot more to the equation than just the CPU.

a17inchFuture
Feb 17, 2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by numediaman


At this point, I'm sure I will need to buy both DVD StudioPro and Final Cut Express if I want to successfully burn DVDs (using Toast is another option, of course).

Umm, if you can get what you need out of imovie and idvd (the non-buggy versions, obviously) then FCP and DVDSP are way too complex and expensive for your tastes.

I personnally am a film director, so i know about these things. If you absolutely need to buy something, try FCP express and then using it with idvd, because buying both in unneccessary it sounds like (imovie is the prob, that or its interaction with idvd), and if you are a "home-video" editor, as imovie and idvd have made so many people into, then you really wont use 90 percent of FCP's features, and at 1000 dollars, that's quite a large investment, not to mention the 1000 for DVDSP!

Good luck, whichever way you go!

agreenster
Feb 17, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by a17inchFuture

Just put the goddamn pb updates out, and for crying out loud!! And they better be damn worthy updates,too. I don't want just 66 mhz more.

Relax there Tonto. How long was the wait between the G3 powerbooks and the G4 powerbooks? Quite a bit if I remember, over a year.

Trust me, Apple isnt sitting around saying, "Nah, lets not make a G5 powerbook. Who wants those?" Its a matter of developing the technology, and keeping it from FRYING the motherboard and casing. Do you want a G5 Powerbook or a skillet? Take it easy. They're coming. Making a 64bit Powerbook aint exactly easy.

Some_Big_Spoon
Feb 17, 2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by whookam
Well it might not be the update that I want (PM!!!) but at least that frickin' awful iTunes/Pepsi front page has been replaced.

Yes, but replaced by an equally awful ipod mini countdown.. ugh.. that is just a grim deal :rolleyes:

Dippo
Feb 17, 2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
Relax there Tonto. How long was the wait between the G3 powerbooks and the G4 powerbooks? Quite a bit if I remember, over a year.

Trust me, Apple isnt sitting around saying, "Nah, lets not make a G5 powerbook. Who wants those?" Its a matter of developing the technology, and keeping it from FRYING the motherboard and casing. Do you want a G5 Powerbook or a skillet? Take it easy. They're coming. Making a 64bit Powerbook aint exactly easy.

It seems like PC companies are able to put any old chip into a laptop. I hear that they are even putting the the overpriced P4 Extreme into a laptop.

And also eMachines has put the Athlon64 into a laptop some time ago. So, I don't think it would be too hard to put the G5 in a PB.

Of course the eMachines my friend has always cuts off when he plays games because it overheats in a few minutes, and I don't know one PC laptop user that doesn't have to have it plugged in all the time, not very portable.

jwhitnah
Feb 17, 2004, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Is it just me, or do PM updates seem like a really dumb idea?(EDIT: a slight exaggeration) If one takes into account the fact that they updated literally a few months ago, I think it is ridiculous for Apple users to be griping for new ones. I mean come on, i get chided for asking for new powerbook revisions on this forum.

Being the line of apple's that has been most recently updated, i sincerely hope they don't update again before powerbooks. Its a bit ridiculous, really, that people are so demanding as well. Sure, the uppermost model wasn't changed, but everything else was.

The powermac's are nowhere in need of updating as much as the PB's.

They still have G4's, remember?

Sure PM's are easier to update than PB's, but with apple, its one product every few months, and personally, I will be disappointed if we are made to wait so 200 mhz can be added to the top of the line.

Seems less worthy to me.

Well yeah. We do need PB but we needed them months ago. Now we need PB AND PM's! I think their product refreshment rate is way too slow. That G5 2.0 GHz machine was introduced 8 month's ago, and as fast as it is, it is starting to look stale.

numediaman
Feb 17, 2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Umm, if you can get what you need out of imovie and idvd (the non-buggy versions, obviously) then FCP and DVDSP are way too complex and expensive for your tastes.

I personnally am a film director, so i know about these things. If you absolutely need to buy something, try FCP express and then using it with idvd, because buying both in unneccessary it sounds like (imovie is the prob, that or its interaction with idvd), and if you are a "home-video" editor, as imovie and idvd have made so many people into, then you really wont use 90 percent of FCP's features, and at 1000 dollars, that's quite a large investment, not to mention the 1000 for DVDSP!

Good luck, whichever way you go!

I currently use Premiere -- so going to iMovie doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So, its really is a question of FCE or FCP. When I buy, it'll be a new G5, Cinema display, extra hard drive, external burner (CD only), new printer and new scanner. So you see, I already know I'll be spending big bucks! The only question is, can I "get away" with iMovie and iDVD for a little while? Right now, the answer is no. (By the way, DVDSP is $499 -- Final Cut Pro, though, is a big investment.)

You know, this doesn't bother me that much. If Apple introduces new G5s I'll buy one even if iLife isn't updated (because it will be eventually). My biggest worry is the graphics card issue (sleeping, etc) that some people (but not all) have experienced. The last thing I want to do is spend up to $6,000 and get a G5 that is DOA!

Photorun
Feb 17, 2004, 10:35 AM
I wont be happy until Apple makes an iPod with 4 TBs using a G7... and a pony.

This chip seems awesome! Let's see some new units!

jmerk
Feb 17, 2004, 10:40 AM
sorry to say it but i'm sticking by my prediction that we will not see a G5 PB until AT THE EARLIEST fall 2004.

the 970fx (corrected) is dissipating 50 watts! that's great for a desktop (with 13 fans), not great for a laptop.

i keep saying it but no one is listening. the PB will not see a G5 chip for some time...

i'll eat my shoe if we see a G5 PB before August...

j

NusuniAdmin
Feb 17, 2004, 10:50 AM
hmmmmm....
Powermacs...
Powermac G5 server edition (quad 2.5 ghz)
high end powermac g5 (dual 2.5 ghz)
middle poweremac g5 (dual 2.3? ghz)
low end powermac g5 (single or dual 2.0 ghz)

and for the pbooks...
high end 17" version(single 2.3 or 2.5 ghz pbook with superdrive)
low end 17" version (single 2.3 ghz with superdrive)
high end 15" (single 2.3 ghz with superdrive)
low end 15" (single 2.0 ghz with combo)
high end 12" (single 2.0 with superdrive)
low end 12" (single 2.0 with combo)

The imacs...
20" imac (single 2.3?)
17" (single 2.3 or 2.0)
15" (single 2.0)

The emac...
Superdrive edition (1.33 or 1.42 ghz g4 or a 2.0 g5)
combo drive edition (1.33 or 1.25 ghz g4 or a 2.0 g5)

The ibooks...
14" high end (1.42 or 1.33 g4)
14" low end (1.33 or 1.25 g4)
12" (1 ghz g4)

xserves...
Just updated

Frobozz
Feb 17, 2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Photorun
I wont be happy until Apple makes an iPod with 4 TBs using a G7... and a pony.

This chip seems awesome! Let's see some new units!

I agree. Lime green pony powered G7's are the only thing that will get me in the store.

Frobozz
Feb 17, 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Powermac G5 server edition (quad 2.5 ghz)


There won't be a server G5 desktop. That's what the xServes are for. You buy one desktop and you plug in an much additional horsepower you need to a rack.

HiRez
Feb 17, 2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by jmerk
the 750fx is dissipating 50 watts! that's great for a desktop (with 13 fans), not great for a laptop.

i keep saying it but no one is listening. the PB will not see a G5 chip for some time...

i'll eat my shoe if we see a G5 PB before August...I think you mean the 970fx, but the 50 watt value was for 2.5 GHz! The same chip at 1.4-1.6 GHz would use only a fraction of that power. It will probably still be fall before we see them though. The perfect place would be WWDC though, since lots of developers use PowerBooks, and Apple moved the show back a few more weeks this year, to the very end of June.

spankalee
Feb 17, 2004, 10:59 AM
Seeing IBM mention 2.5Ghz chips makes me wonder about why the XServe only goes to 2Ghz and what Apple's plans are.

Is it possible the the extra cooling in the Xserve still isn't enough to cool the 970fx @ 2.5Ghz? Or is it that the 2.5 parts won't be shipping in volume for w while yet?

I think the most likely scenario is that they didn't want to announce XServes that are faster than PowerMacs, but they did want to pre-announce them since they're getting a lot of interest for G5 clusters. They also don't want to pre-announce the PowerMacs. The new models will be available the day they're announced, other wise sales would die.

So if the XServe can handle the 2.5Ghz 970fx then what does Apple do when they release the new PowerMac? Does the XServe lag for a while in order to not piss off those who just bought a 2.0Ghz? They would probably be upset anyway. Does Apple bump the XServe to 2.5Ghz along with the PowerMac and have the 2.0s only exist for a few weeks? Or does Apple automatically upgrade all XServe orders to 2.5Ghz?

I think that might happen. PowerMacs will be announced and XServes will ship on the same day, and the big suprise will be that all XServe orders are upgraded to 2.5Ghz.

hmmm.....

amnesiac1984
Feb 17, 2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Dippo
It seems like PC companies are able to put any old chip into a laptop. I hear that they are even putting the the overpriced P4 Extreme into a laptop.

And also eMachines has put the Athlon64 into a laptop some time ago. So, I don't think it would be too hard to put the G5 in a PB.

Of course the eMachines my friend has always cuts off when he plays games because it overheats in a few minutes, and I don't know one PC laptop user that doesn't have to have it plugged in all the time, not very portable.

Yeah but these laptops with P4 extreme's aren\t laptops. They are portable desktop replacements. They weigh a ton and are several inches thick and have crap battery life. The clever way apple was able to compete with the G4 PB is to have the equivalent power of a desktop replacement system in the form factor of a true ultralite portable. That takes engineering and thats what Apple is doing right now.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 17, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Frobozz
There won't be a server G5 desktop. That's what the xServes are for. You buy one desktop and you plug in an much additional horsepower you need to a rack.

I know that, but g4 servers were out at the same time as the xserves. I guess G5's r more server like than the pmac g4's but still, a specialy designed g5 server tower would be kinda cool.

PPCTech
Feb 17, 2004, 11:09 AM
G5 PowerBook's will come quicker than most people expect. With IBM yielding 95%+ on at 90nm on the A01 silicon is pretty damn impressive. You will see a 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 G5 PowerBook pop up by end of April.

PowerBooks have always been released in Jan, March, April, May, Sept, October, or November. There is a 7-8 month spread between all PowerBook revisions that have ever come out, and because last September saw an upgrade to the PB line, we are due for one in April.

September / October / November is too late for the PowerBook G5 simply because the G4 processor is dead. SPS Spinco / Freescale Semi (spin-off of Motorola Semi-Conductor unit which will still own the rights and create PPC processors) will still be in transition and you will see nothing creative or any more speed bumps from the G4, which will require Apple to move to G5 based notebook ASAP.

If the 90nm process will allow the 2.0GHz to run at 24.5W, then surely the 1.6GHz and 1.8GHz 90nm products dissipate considerably less. If you use the new information that 2.5GHz dissipate 50W, then 1.6/1.8 should use 15W or less, which fit perfectly into any notebook line. The most you will still see the G4 being used is upgrading the iBook.

Revisions of PowerMac's are not nearly as predictable as the PowerBook line has been, because Apple always sticks in the fastest processor available on those models, so they had to stretch the length they were on the market, because of poor supply of high yielding faster processors from Motorola on the G4. But now that IBM has entered the fray and is aggressively pushing PowerPC / Power line of processors, the PowerMac line will very closely resemble the PowerBook release rate.

Great things are in store for the PowerPC / Power architecture from IBM.

-PPCTech

jmerk
Feb 17, 2004, 11:30 AM
i'm preparing to eat my shoe.

there were some great arguments made. i (stupidly) never thought of a "slower clocked" G5 90nm dissipating less heat.

i guess i was looking at it as the current powerbooks are very similar in speed/features to the g4 desktops (i'd say "current desktop" but obviously they aren't in the class with the G5).

i was assuming the same paradigm would be used (apple would try to make the g5 powerbook as similar to the g5 desktop as possible). i suppose at 1.6 or 1.8 ghz, they are fairly similar.

well, good arguments all, i hope that they come to fruition in the spring. i'll be in the market come next year about this time. i hope that they are on the second or third rev. by that time...

either way, it is nice to see that the current chip maker for apple actually has a vision for the future!

j

pjkelnhofer
Feb 17, 2004, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
Thinking about it, this seems right on track with Apple's traditional timetable. August was the original intro for the G5, 6-7 months later (march) is the 2.5 update, 5-6 months later (August) is the 3.0 update.

Makes sense to me.

Difference is, we are seeing huge speedbumps instead of those dinky ones we were used to seeing. To 2.5 from 2 is pretty large. Remember when 500mhz was as fast as any Mac you could get? Now thats the increments the processors are moving in every 6 months. Nice. Theorhetically, we could see 4-4.5ghz G5s (G6?) by Summer 2005 at the rate IBM and the PPC is growing.

But percentage wise it is not really a huge speed bump. It is the same as 400 MHz to 500 MHz or 1 GHz to 1.25 GHz. It seems to me the a 25% increase in 6 months is not really a huge jump. In reality it is what we should be expecting (and pretty much on par with Moore's Law).

3-22
Feb 17, 2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by jmerk
sorry to say it but i'm sticking by my prediction that we will not see a G5 PB until AT THE EARLIEST fall 2004.

the 970fx (corrected) is dissipating 50 watts! that's great for a desktop (with 13 fans), not great for a laptop.

i keep saying it but no one is listening. the PB will not see a G5 chip for some time...

i'll eat my shoe if we see a G5 PB before August...

j

Well 50 watts was at 2.5GHz. So at 1.8-2.0 Ghz that should shave off some watts as well.

My prediction is you will see a G5 laptop soon, probably around 1.8/2.0GHz. Battery life and heat will be worse then previous laptops though. I just don't see how they can keep up with the decent heat/watt/performance of the G3 and G4 processors, they were built for embedded markets. (but that comes with a price, you give up on the blazing speed) Maybe they can, maybe those Apple engineers have some tricks up their sleeve. But while the IBM processor watts are still way better then Intel's laptop processor offerings, i think gone are the days of the low-watt G4.

Perhaps they have a battery/cooling system backpack in mind...
:D

agreenster
Feb 17, 2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
But percentage wise it is not really a huge speed bump....(and pretty much on par with Moore's Law).

Yep. Good point! Didnt think about it.

daveL
Feb 17, 2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by 3-22
Well 50 watts was at 2.5GHz. So at 1.8-2.0 Ghz that should shave off some watts as well.

My prediction is you will see a G5 laptop soon, probably around 1.8/2.0GHz. Battery life and heat will be worse then previous laptops though. I just don't see how they can keep up with the decent heat/watt/performance of the G3 and G4 processors, they were built for embedded markets. (but that comes with a price, you give up on the blazing speed) Maybe they can, maybe those Apple engineers have some tricks up their sleeve. But while the IBM processor watts are still way better then Intel's laptop processor offerings, i think gone are the days of the low-watt G4.

Perhaps they have a battery/cooling system backpack in mind...
:D
I think you are ignoring the ability of PowerTune technology to allow a PB to maintain it's lower power consumption characteristic, with much higher performance. IBM cited playing a DVD as an example: Only 25% of the CPU cycles are used for playback, allowing the CPU to ramp down power dramatically the other 75% of the time. The G4, while being a low power design, does not have anything close to the power management features of the 970FX. This is a case where you can damn near have your cake and eat it too.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 17, 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
But percentage wise it is not really a huge speed bump. It is the same as 400 MHz to 500 MHz or 1 GHz to 1.25 GHz. It seems to me the a 25% increase in 6 months is not really a huge jump. In reality it is what we should be expecting (and pretty much on par with Moore's Law). please dont use moores law and G4 in the same sentence. G4 hasnt kept up with or even got close to moores law. G4 is a joke. G4 is the worst decision Apple ever made in the past 5 years. debut at 500 and 5years later we are at 1.33? Yes i have a G4 and can tell you they suck! Pathetic P.O.S. frozen again for a year. excuse me why i puke!

daveL
Feb 17, 2004, 12:16 PM
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the Power5 info provided. The article states:

"IBM will release servers built with the dual-core Power 5 processor later this year. The new chips will offer 20 to 40 percent improvements in performance over the older Power 4 generation due in part to improved multithreading technology, Clabes said."

IBM and Apple previously stated that work on the 975 (aka 980, G6, etc) would proceed in parallel with the development of the Power5. So, it's not unreasonable to expect the 975 on 90nm by CYQ4. I believe this will be the processor that attains 3 GHz+, not the 970FX.

Docrjm
Feb 17, 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by jmerk
sorry to say it but i'm sticking by my prediction that we will not see a G5 PB until AT THE EARLIEST fall 2004.

the 970fx (corrected) is dissipating 50 watts! that's great for a desktop (with 13 fans), not great for a laptop.

i keep saying it but no one is listening. the PB will not see a G5 chip for some time...

i'll eat my shoe if we see a G5 PB before August...

j
Is it a nice ripe well used shoe, i hope:D

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 17, 2004, 12:24 PM
After years of G4 stagnation why are you surprised we have not mention Power5? we dont even have the G4 replaced yet.

fahlman
Feb 17, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
(and pretty much on par with Moore's Law).
Moore's Law has nothing to do with Mhz. In a nutshell Moore's Law states that the transistor density on integrated circuits doubles every couple of years. This exponential growth and ever-shrinking transistor size result in increased performance and decreased cost. Here is a link (ftp://download.intel.com/research/silicon/moorespaper.pdf) to Gordoan Moore's, Co-Founder of Intel, original paper.

3-22
Feb 17, 2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I think you are ignoring the ability of PowerTune technology to allow a PB to maintain it's lower power consumption characteristic, with much higher performance. IBM cited playing a DVD as an example: Only 25% of the CPU cycles are used for playback, allowing the CPU to ramp down power dramatically the other 75% of the time. The G4, while being a low power design, does not have anything close to the power management features of the 970FX. This is a case where you can damn near have your cake and eat it too.

Well I hope it all works out... You'll have to excuse my jaded attitude to the new "PowerTune" buzzword. Being a recent "switcher" from Windows/Intel I've given up hope on processor manufacturers and there creative use of terms that do nothing they promise.

BUT... It's a whole new world, and I like what IBM is doing. I hope this PowerTune thing pans out and delivers on its claims of near-real time power management... Sounds very interesting...

johnnyjibbs
Feb 17, 2004, 01:16 PM
It looks like we'll be getting 2.5 GHz G5s in the next few weeks then. Let's hope they are duals, or there will be complaints... Then I reckon iMacs will be next, probably up to 1.8 (or 2.0 GHz). Power Macs are due for an update, although the P4 is still stuck at 3.2/3.4GHz and looks set to continue like that for a good while yet. It seems that while Moore's law is starting to break down on the Intel side, it is starting to pick up on the PowerPC camp!

Oh, and iMovie 4 and iDVD 4 both work completely fine with me (as does FCE and iDVD 4). iMovie has really improved in performance, iDVD could be faster but it is ok. I can export straight to iDVD from iMovie without any conversion process too.

Frobozz
Feb 17, 2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by PPCTech

Great things are in store for the PowerPC / Power architecture from IBM.

I have to agree. I know enough people involved with IBM to know that the stuff they work on is WAY ahead of the competition. What we are experiencing now is a calm before the storm.

I have a Quicksilver DP 1 GHz and it's serving me well. However, when the G5 hits Dual 3.0 GHz, I will buy a new one. The thought of a 2.0 GHz G5 laptop does sound fantastic though...

a17inchFuture
Feb 17, 2004, 01:45 PM
Please let there be new G5 powerbooks before summer!! I thinnk so many of us here are righ. The G4 is too old to try and use in a new line of Powerbooks. I think, especially with this new processor, many smart buyers (which is what most apple buyers are :) )won't bite if they release pb's with better G4's.

one more time: please pb G5's before summer!

NusuniAdmin
Feb 17, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Please let there be new G5 powerbooks before summer!! I thinnk so many of us here are righ. The G4 is too old to try and use in a new line of Powerbooks. I think, especially with this new processor, many smart buyers (which is what most apple buyers are :) )won't bite if they release pb's with better G4's.

one more time: please pb G5's before summer!

Wouldn't it be so farggin funny if they upped the pb line to 1.42 ghz G4 haha

PPCTech
Feb 17, 2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the Power5 info provided.

If you read the info released, the Power5 dissipates 160W, but considering they have 4 CPU dies, with 2 CPU's per die, along with 144MB of L3 cache, what can you expect? And based on that it will never see any life in an Apple product, because of the extreme cooling methods it needs. The POWER architecture is specifically meant for big tin machines, not consumers. It isn't implausible that Apple could create a POWER based workstation that exceeds the price of the PowerMac line for serious enterprise customers, GIS, scientific, government, and military demanding bleeding edge technology.

What you will see is Apple using IBM derivatives of the POWER architecture specifically for the PowerPC CPU's that trickle down like SMT, dual core CPU's, and integrated memory controllers.

Xgrid technology may change that, but doubtful. If you look at Apple hardware, yes it is cutting edge and generally leads the way for what you will see in PC's within a year or so, but never do they move to strictly bleeding edge technology that is unproven in the consumer market, or too cost prohibitive which would make thier margins shrink.

Apple first and foremost is a consumer based company.

-PPCTech

HiRez
Feb 17, 2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by PPCTech
And based on that it will never see any life in an Apple product, because of the extreme cooling methods it needs. The POWER architecture is specifically meant for big tin machines, not consumers. It isn't implausible that Apple could create a POWER based workstation that exceeds the price of the PowerMac line for serious enterprise customers, GIS, scientific, government, and military demanding bleeding edge technology.It sounds like the perfect chip for...the PowerNode (http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/)!!

http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/images/powernode_small.jpg

Seriously, though, isn't the G6 supposed to be the Power5 derivative that you speak of, in the same way The G5 was a Power4 derivative? I never heard anyone suggest the Power5 would be used directly by Apple. I don't even think it's going to have Velocity Engine capabilities, is it? The thing about the Power5/G6 that sounds the most tantalizing to me is the dual-core nature, essentially enabling a quad-processor machine without all the tricky engineering it would take with the G5.

greenstork
Feb 17, 2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by jwhitnah
Well yeah. We do need PB but we needed them months ago. Now we need PB AND PM's! I think their product refreshment rate is way too slow. That G5 2.0 GHz machine was introduced 8 month's ago, and as fast as it is, it is starting to look stale.

I would venture to guess that you don't even need any of the power of the 2.0 GHz G5.

[mod. edit - inappropriate]

pjkelnhofer
Feb 17, 2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
I would venture to guess that you don't even need any of the power of the 2.0 GHz G5.

I hate the argument that people don't need the fastest or newest computers. Especially, when it is used to defend Apple's sometimes slow progress in releasing new hardware.
Most people don't need most of what modern PC's can do, but does that mean we should all go pull our 8088's out the dump and start working in CP/M again?

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 17, 2004, 03:22 PM
yeah really like people are going to lay down big money for stale hardware. these are the same type of clowns that thought G4s could sell forever. Greenstork is clueless to each persons need. Its like Apple telling the consumer through the consumer line you dont need speed you dont need a good video card and you dont need the monitor you are using. Ignore the Greenstorks because they are blind. maybe Greenstork should go find a used G3 for sale. Amazing that people think you can go on forever with no progress. Hos that pjkelnholfer
;)

greenstork
Feb 17, 2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
I hate the argument that people don't need the fastest or newest computers. Especially, when it is used to defend Apple's sometimes slow progress in releasing new hardware.
Most people don't need most of what modern PC's can do, but does that mean we should all go pull our 8088's out the dump and start working in CP/M again?

All I'm saying is that the Dual G5 2.0 GHz is a sweet machine. Yes, Apple should continue to innovate but I don't need anything more powerful than a Dual 2.0 and I do heavy graphic design work and gaming. Therefore, I would never buy anything more powerful until software 3-4 years from now necessitates it.

Should Apple stop innovation because 99% of all users don't need more power - NO. However, the Dual G5 is far from "stale," as the poster I responded to claimed. I hate the argument that people need faster machines in the era of the G5. With G4 stagnation, I understood, but now we have very fast computers and people just don't need that extra power. When these people complain, it just sounds silly.

And yes, to respond to your suggestion, I don't think people should buy new computers when they don't need the power. It's wasteful and bad for the environment. Obviously, the 8088 you mentioned wouldn't run Panther, but if a system did run the software you wanted, at the speed you wanted, why would you buy a new computer?

Golem
Feb 17, 2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by a17inchFuture
Is it just me, or do PM updates seem like a really dumb idea?(EDIT: a slight exaggeration) If one takes into account the fact that they updated literally a few months ago, I think it is ridiculous for Apple users to be griping for new ones. I mean come on, i get chided for asking for new powerbook revisions on this forum.

Being the line of apple's that has been most recently updated, i sincerely hope they don't update again before powerbooks. Its a bit ridiculous, really, that people are so demanding as well. Sure, the uppermost model wasn't changed, but everything else was.

The powermac's are nowhere in need of updating as much as the PB's.

They still have G4's, remember?

Sure PM's are easier to update than PB's, but with apple, its one product every few months, and personally, I will be disappointed if we are made to wait so 200 mhz can be added to the top of the line.

Seems less worthy to me.

If they have 2.5 Ghz G5's why not use them? They certainly arent going to put them into a Powerbook any time soon and I doubt the work involved in going from a 2.0-> 2.5 pmac is mor e than 1/10 of the work that will need to be done to get a G5 pbook out their.

Not that it affects me much. I have been saying wait for Speed bumps since December and finally got over ruled so we picked up 2 more G5's yesterday so no chance of updating mine for 6mnths to a year now.

greenstork
Feb 17, 2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
yeah really like people are going to lay down big money for stale hardware. these are the same type of clowns that thought G4s could sell forever. Greenstork is clueless to each persons need. Its like Apple telling the consumer through the consumer line you dont need speed you dont a good video card and you dont need the monitor you are using. Ignore the Greenstorks because they are blind. maybe Greenstork should go find a used G3 for sale. Amazing that people think you can go on forever with no progress. Hos that pjkelnholfer
;)

We're not talking about G3's or G4's, we're talking about the fastest G5's. If these are stale and old, you're just spoiled rotten.

edit: As for not knowing people needs, I do know this. The ONLY people that need anything faster than a 2.0 GHz G5 are exclusively executing processor intensive tasks like heavy graphic work and video rendering (gaming relies more on the video card and the 2.0 GHz G5 is more than up to the task already for every single game available). Most other software doesn't need that processor power. We are in a time in computing in which hardware improvements have outpaced software demands.

edit 2: I never said stop innovating or no progress, RTF post. Stop jumping to conclusions about what you think I was saying.

jacobslateralus
Feb 17, 2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by numediaman
I don't know whether the problem is iMovie itself, or the interface with iDVD...But the problems have been dominating the Apple discussion boards since their introduction...Threads with names like "IMovie 4 - worst update ever" are not encouraging...One of the best "work arounds" I've heard is not exporting your iMovie to iDVD, but instead sharing using the DV Stream settings -- then bring that new file into iDVD...At this point, I'm sure I will need to buy both DVD StudioPro and Final Cut Express if I want to successfully burn DVDs

I use imovie 4 and idvd 4 all the time so I just thought I'd share my experience with them.

The only problem I've had with imovie 4 is not being able to crop an audio track (like an imported song)...the roll edit feature works great, but if the song is at the end of you movie and is say 2 min. longer at the end....I allways get stuck with 2 min. of black screen at the end of the movie (on imovie 3.x you could crop the audio and fix this....now this option is grayed out).

The only problem I've had with idvd 4 is the freakishly long render times. Once all of your movies are finally encoded (using background encoding) you still have to wait litterally over night for it to render the menus and burn the disc!

As far as having problems exporting from imovie to idvd....who knows? I never use that feature. All you have to do is open your imovie project folder and drag the reference movie into idvd.

sorry to get so off topic....
here's hoping we get both powermac updates and g5 powerbooks next month!

digitalbiker
Feb 17, 2004, 04:05 PM
The problem with waiting on software that motivates hardware development is that hardware always has to come first.

First hardware innovation.
2nd compiler optimization.
3rd OS optimization
4rd software optimization.

So therefore stagnant hardware leads to stagnant programming enviroment which leads to stagnant software.

Innovative new software will come once the hardware is built that will run the software.

Now granted this isn't entirely true but in general it pretty much holds to this paradigm.

In other words, "Build it, and they will come!"

MadMan
Feb 17, 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by spankalee
Or does Apple automatically upgrade all XServe orders to 2.5Ghz?

I think that might happen. PowerMacs will be announced and XServes will ship on the same day, and the big suprise will be that all XServe orders are upgraded to 2.5Ghz.

hmmm.....

That would be cool :cool: :D

Then I would look for all this to be announced around 3/10, because that's the ship date I currently have for my new xServe dual 2(.5) Ghz!

YEA!

:cool:

MM

greenstork
Feb 17, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker
The problem with waiting on software that motivates hardware development is that hardware always has to come first.

First hardware innovation.
2nd compiler optimization.
3rd OS optimization
4rd software optimization.

So therefore stagnant hardware leads to stagnant programming enviroment which leads to stagnant software.

Innovative new software will come once the hardware is built that will run the software.

Now granted this isn't entirely true but in general it pretty much holds to this paradigm.

In other words, "Build it, and they will come!"

I'm not questioning you but I simply don't understand how this holds true to OS X, which started development in the days of the G3, on which it is ill-suited to run effectively, or do OS' adhere to different rules?

edit: The same could be said for the first Windows, which ran horribly slow on the hardware at the time it was released.

Chomolungma
Feb 17, 2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
edit: As for not knowing people needs, I do know this. The ONLY people that need anything faster than a 2.0 GHz G5 are exclusively executing processor intensive tasks like heavy graphic work and video rendering (gaming relies more on the video card and the 2.0 GHz G5 is more than up to the task already for every single game available).

Apparently you have not heard of science in particular bioscience. Ever try to do Baysian analysis on 30 individuals and ~500 bp each (DNA)? Can the Dual 2.0 Ghz do this in a week, instead of the 28 days that my PM G4 takes. Renting supercomputer time is not an option (optimization, money, among others)

-Chomo

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 17, 2004, 04:34 PM
saw your later posts greenstork, much clearer, yeah i agree if you have a new g5 I concur. how many of us have one? the whole line up has been running G3s with altivec= G4 I get the feeling the current G5s were kind of a rush job because of G4 stagnation. Powerline sales had become dismal. I dont think we will see higher clocks on the 130mm process. So since Apple plays so many games between models this can only mean a faster Powermac before any other models due to their own game.

numediaman
Feb 17, 2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by jacobslateralus
I use imovie 4 and idvd 4 all the time so I just thought I'd share my experience with them.

The only problem I've had with imovie 4 is not being able to crop an audio track (like an imported song)...the roll edit feature works great, but if the song is at the end of you movie and is say 2 min. longer at the end....I allways get stuck with 2 min. of black screen at the end of the movie (on imovie 3.x you could crop the audio and fix this....now this option is grayed out).

The only problem I've had with idvd 4 is the freakishly long render times. Once all of your movies are finally encoded (using background encoding) you still have to wait litterally over night for it to render the menus and burn the disc!

As far as having problems exporting from imovie to idvd....who knows? I never use that feature. All you have to do is open your imovie project folder and drag the reference movie into idvd.

sorry to get so off topic....
here's hoping we get both powermac updates and g5 powerbooks next month!

Actually, you're not off topic at all. A lot of people here are wondering why it is taking Apple so long to update the G5s. I feel it is because Apple still has some work ahead of them. For instance, getting their software to work on the G5s!

The problems is exactly exporting from iMovie to iDVD -- which is why you have not experienced this problem. Also, encoding times for iDVD -- which you have. I'm not saying these new versions are without merit -- many have said they are very happy with the quality of the final products with iDVD. But if you are going to shell out close to three grand for a new G5 you expect the pre-installed software to work, right?

Once a few of these issues are fixed, I expect G5 updates. The longer we have to wait, of course, the closer we will be to IBM being able to deliver 3.0. But I'll settle for 2.5.

If Greenstork thinks the G5 is great as it is that's great. But if you have ever encoded a two hour movie and burned it to DVD, you know you need as much firepower as possible. And this is exactly what Steve Jobs promised everyone at MWSF.

digitalbiker
Feb 17, 2004, 04:52 PM
I'm not questioning you but I simply don't understand how this holds true to OS X, which started development in the days of the G3


Well like I said it doesn't hold true 100 percent of the time. However I am not sure if OS X breaks the mold or not.

OSX essentially came from Unix (FreeBSD). The Aqua GUI interface and Darwin subsystem were not really optimized until the new GCC compiler was optimized for the G4. They ran but they ran like crap too. Most people would probably argue that OSX wasn't really a viable alternative until Jaguar which was definitely post G4 hardware.

Also Apple probably already had G4 prototype machines and the technical specs long before they spec'd out Aqua and Darwin to take advantage of those hardware updates.

I guess the real question is would OS X be possible if it was still required to run on say a 68020 moto chip. with 10 meg harddrives.

stingerman
Feb 17, 2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by spankalee
Seeing IBM mention 2.5Ghz chips makes me wonder about why the XServe only goes to 2Ghz and what Apple's plans are.

Is it possible the the extra cooling in the Xserve still isn't enough to cool the 970fx @ 2.5Ghz? Or is it that the 2.5 parts won't be shipping in volume for w while yet?

It could be pre-production yields, but it most likely is that Apple was not going to release a 2.5GHz Xserve till only after it releases a 2.5GHz PM G5. If they had, most of us who are ready to buy would put on hold our purchase and kill Apple's sales for the Quarter. By releasing it at 2GHz, Apple is sending out the signal that we will not see a faster G5 this quarter so go ahead and buy the G5 at 2GHz. It makes sense and I think it is a smart decision as IBM only recently said that they are starting higher production runs soon. So IBM was not ready to go full production till middle of February, which gives Apple a one month lead.

This is after all not just a speed bump but a new process altogether and with new PowerTune technology. After the 970FX is in full production it will scale much faster and we should see 3GHz+ by this August. Let's be reasonable people. This isn't just a speed bump, look at it as yet another whole new processor change. So a March release would be awesome. And if IBM is saying 2.5, maybe we'll get 2.6.

daveL
Feb 17, 2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by PPCTech
If you read the info released, the Power5 dissipates 160W, but considering they have 4 CPU dies, with 2 CPU's per die, along with 144MB of L3 cache, what can you expect? And based on that it will never see any life in an Apple product, because of the extreme cooling methods it needs. The POWER architecture is specifically meant for big tin machines, not consumers. It isn't implausible that Apple could create a POWER based workstation that exceeds the price of the PowerMac line for serious enterprise customers, GIS, scientific, government, and military demanding bleeding edge technology.

What you will see is Apple using IBM derivatives of the POWER architecture specifically for the PowerPC CPU's that trickle down like SMT, dual core CPU's, and integrated memory controllers.

Xgrid technology may change that, but doubtful. If you look at Apple hardware, yes it is cutting edge and generally leads the way for what you will see in PC's within a year or so, but never do they move to strictly bleeding edge technology that is unproven in the consumer market, or too cost prohibitive which would make thier margins shrink.

Apple first and foremost is a consumer based company.

-PPCTech
Well, I see you're a newbie, so first I'll say check the archives. The current G5 (970) is a derivative of the Power4 processor, with one core, but Altivec added on. In parallel to IBM developing the Power5, they have been developing the 975 (sometimes called the 980 or G6), which is a derivative of the Power5, again with Altivec added.

BTW, I never said anything about Apple building a Power5-based machine. I said the Power5 news was of interest to us. It's of interest to us because of the 975 derivative that will follow on its heels and that will be used by Apple before the end of this year, it appears.

jwhitnah
Feb 17, 2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
please dont use moores law and G4 in the same sentence. G4 hasnt kept up with or even got close to moores law. G4 is a joke. G4 is the worst decision Apple ever made in the past 5 years. debut at 500 and 5years later we are at 1.33? Yes i have a G4 and can tell you they suck! Pathetic P.O.S. frozen again for a year. excuse me why i puke!

Sad but true. Apple was screwed by Moto! Remember how they pulled the 500 because of poor yields for like a year. That was the begining of the end. Let us never use the G4 as the standard.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 17, 2004, 08:05 PM
you think about it a G4 is a G3 with altivec. now i'm really Hurting.:o

wizard
Feb 17, 2004, 08:20 PM
If the thought of quad G5 towers turn you on, consider this. Those CPU's may be multithreaded so you could potentially see 8 logical cpu's in a G5 Tower. This would be the same machine many of us have and others lust for.

Now all we have to do is hope that if Apple/IBM does decide to deliver a multithread processor that they are able to support it correctly. All thse CPU's will do no one any good if the OS can't drive them properly.

thanks
Dave


Originally posted by HiRez
It sounds like the perfect chip for...the PowerNode (http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/)!!

http://home.earthlink.net/~benstahl/powernode/images/powernode_small.jpg

Seriously, though, isn't the G6 supposed to be the Power5 derivative that you speak of, in the same way The G5 was a Power4 derivative? I never heard anyone suggest the Power5 would be used directly by Apple. I don't even think it's going to have Velocity Engine capabilities, is it? The thing about the Power5/G6 that sounds the most tantalizing to me is the dual-core nature, essentially enabling a quad-processor machine without all the tricky engineering it would take with the G5.

wizard
Feb 17, 2004, 08:40 PM
You seem to have a few ideas completely wrong here.

First the G5 is a good chip and is a powerhouse at floationg point but it can hardly be called leading edge in integer calculations. The truth is that it is barely competitive with much of the i86 world. The G5 is stale in the sense, that being a first release, we have not seen a speed bump in a long time. This is a problem when the competition is steadly releasing new hardware.

Your statement about gaming are so far off base that one has to wonder if they where made as some sort of joke. If a video card was the only requirement for good gaming why did G4 perform so poorly with gaming software relative to any of the i86 machines it was sold agianst? Excellent CPU performance is a requirement for progress in gaming and to allow good interaction with contemporary software. Just look at the machines that gamers buy, they always strive for top shelf CPU's - there is a reason for that.

Forgetting the gamers though there are a whole host of applications out there looking for a hiehg performance machine to run on. Many of these applications are used by individuals in an interactive environment. Software responsiveness is an absolute requirement.

Dave


Originally posted by greenstork
We're not talking about G3's or G4's, we're talking about the fastest G5's. If these are stale and old, you're just spoiled rotten.

edit: As for not knowing people needs, I do know this. The ONLY people that need anything faster than a 2.0 GHz G5 are exclusively executing processor intensive tasks like heavy graphic work and video rendering (gaming relies more on the video card and the 2.0 GHz G5 is more than up to the task already for every single game available). Most other software doesn't need that processor power. We are in a time in computing in which hardware improvements have outpaced software demands.

edit 2: I never said stop innovating or no progress, RTF post. Stop jumping to conclusions about what you think I was saying.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 17, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by wizard
You seem to have a few ideas completely wrong here.

First the G5 is a good chip and is a powerhouse at floationg point but it can hardly be called leading edge in integer calculations. The truth is that it is barely competitive with much of the i86 world. The G5 is stale in the sense, that being a first release, we have not seen a speed bump in a long time. This is a problem when the competition is steadly releasing new hardware.

Your statement about gaming are so far off base that one has to wonder if they where made as some sort of joke. If a video card was the only requirement for good gaming why did G4 perform so poorly with gaming software relative to any of the i86 machines it was sold agianst? Excellent CPU performance is a requirement for progress in gaming and to allow good interaction with contemporary software. Just look at the machines that gamers buy, they always strive for top shelf CPU's - there is a reason for that.

Forgetting the gamers though there are a whole host of applications out there looking for a hiehg performance machine to run on. Many of these applications are used by individuals in an interactive environment. Software responsiveness is an absolute requirement.

Dave

Your ideas are wrong, what the heck is a i86, dude....lol......funny

MrSugar
Feb 17, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by greenstork
All I'm saying is that the Dual G5 2.0 GHz is a sweet machine. Yes, Apple should continue to innovate but I don't need anything more powerful than a Dual 2.0 and I do heavy graphic design work and gaming. Therefore, I would never buy anything more powerful until software 3-4 years from now necessitates it. ...


While the dual 2.0 may be fast, you will still notice a difference with speed bumps. The g5 does look stale, it has had the same HD, same graphics, same specs for months and months. It's time for a change, I do a lot of design work as well. I have used a g5 and I know personally I can push the limits of it.

Is it fast? Hell yes, should it be faster, you bet. I want a computer that moves faster than I do. I want to run dreamweaver at full speed, I want to not even wait for photoshop actions, I want to run flash blazing fast, I want to have 15 browser windows open. I should be able to do all these things at the same time and the computer should laugh at me and tell me to bring it on.

I realize this is unrealistic, but the faster I can go on a computer the more work I get done. The more comfortable I am. Every bit of power the g5 can offer will be used in my opinion, maybe not all the time, but it will be used.

so let's see new revs!

uberman42
Feb 17, 2004, 11:32 PM
It is so funny how people crap on the G5. Remember May of last year right before the WWDC and we were so peeved at the G4 non-sense for the past four years? The G5 comes out and now people are pissed at it or pissing on it. Apple understands its market and there are a lot of satisfied customers of the G5. They also have an update, waiting to pull the switch, when the pent up demand is slowing G5 sales. If apple kept releasing product after product bump in a 3 month timetable, then they would have financial issues (can you imagine 3-5 months excess inventory?)

Technically, the G5s have been on the market for five months (Oct 2003). So look for new G5s in March.

:eek:

PPCTech
Feb 18, 2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by daveL
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the Power5 info provided. The article states:

"IBM will release servers built with the dual-core Power 5 processor later this year. The new chips will offer 20 to 40 percent improvements in performance over the older Power 4 generation due in part to improved multithreading technology, Clabes said."

IBM and Apple previously stated that work on the 975 (aka 980, G6, etc) would proceed in parallel with the development of the Power5. So, it's not unreasonable to expect the 975 on 90nm by CYQ4. I believe this will be the processor that attains 3 GHz+, not the 970FX.

daveL,

I responded to your previous statement... you describe the POWER5 and why no one has mentioned it. Even though later you go on to talk of the 975/980/G6, I commented on the POWER5 which you said "I'm surprised nobody has commented on the Power5." -- This statement lead me to believe you actually thought the POWER5 would make it into an Apple product.

You worded your post wrong, hardly making me a "newbie"

-PPCTech

army_guy
Feb 18, 2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by PPCTech


Great things are in store for the PowerPC / Power architecture from IBM.

-PPCTech

The Power is good, but unfortunetly only on paper. In terms of speed the Itanium 2 rules, this isnt even debatable. But it doesnt mean Intel will suddenly sell milions of Itaniums. The software isnt there and its too slow and expensive to port and the speed increase isnt justified. As for the power architecture it has lots of support and software but doesnt come close to the SUN, alot of the major tools are missing hence thier use is limited as far as workstations go. Stability and reliability is also flakey and needs a kick to bring it on par with the competition, again Iam not crititising the power architecture all iam saying theres room for improvement. As for dual cores CPUS, U SPARC 4's are being deployed as we speak, iam waiting for the new blade to be released.

As for the gaming issue, the G5 was not designed to play games period. Yes you can play games but only after waiting months for a PC to MAC port and then the speed cannot be compared to an equivalent x86 machine. The requirements for playing games have changed over the years as most of the processing (2/3rd's) is done by the graphics chip, however with anti-alliasing, filtering, pixel/virtex shaders and high polygon counts together with high BW requirements demand much more than CPU power. You need a fast graphics chip, very very fast graphics memory, a fast interface, a fast and a solid chipset. CPU speed comes last togethor with the system memory.

As for multithreading its a gimmick, it only helps if your doing multiple things at once say encodeing a DIVX movie while rendering a 3d scene at the same time. Its usless if your only focussing on one thing, nothing beats real HW, dont expect QUAD CPU performance from a multithreaded G5, it simply doesnt work like that.

manu chao
Feb 18, 2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by MrSugar
While the dual 2.0 may be fast, you will still notice a difference with speed bumps. The g5 does look stale, it has had the same HD, same graphics, same specs for months and months. It's time for a change, I do a lot of design work as well. I have used a g5 and I know personally I can push the limits of it.

Is it fast? Hell yes, should it be faster, you bet. I want a computer that moves faster than I do. I want to run dreamweaver at full speed, I want to not even wait for photoshop actions, I want to run flash blazing fast, I want to have 15 browser windows open. I should be able to do all these things at the same time and the computer should laugh at me and tell me to bring it on.

I realize this is unrealistic, but the faster I can go on a computer the more work I get done. The more comfortable I am. Every bit of power the g5 can offer will be used in my opinion, maybe not all the time, but it will be used.

so let's see new revs!

In the past Apple has never updated their products more than roughly twice a year, and I don't think they are going to change that. I guess you'll have to live with it.

Apple probably thinks it is loosing less money like this on outdated hardware they can only sell at a discount, once a better modell is introduced. They also have far less modells to advertise, to maintain in their databases, to support technically, to test new software with, and so on. And once they introduce new modells they have much more new features to advertise.

With that business modell, you might have to wait three more months before a new graphic card is introduced, but in the end the difference for the customer is not that big.

PPCTech
Feb 18, 2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by army_guy
The Power is good, but unfortunetly only on paper. In terms of speed the Itanium 2 rules, this isnt even debatable. But it doesnt mean Intel will suddenly sell milions of Itaniums. The software isnt there and its too slow and expensive to port and the speed increase isnt justified. As for the power architecture it has lots of support and software but doesnt come close to the SUN, alot of the major tools are missing hence thier use is limited as far as workstations go. Stability and reliability is also flakey and needs a kick to bring it on par with the competition, again Iam not crititising the power architecture all iam saying theres room for improvement. As for dual cores CPUS, U SPARC 4's are being deployed as we speak, iam waiting for the new blade to be released.

As for the gaming issue, the G5 was not designed to play games period. Yes you can play games but only after waiting months for a PC to MAC port and then the speed cannot be compared to an equivalent x86 machine. The requirements for playing games have changed over the years as most of the processing (2/3rd's) is done by the graphics chip, however with anti-alliasing, filtering, pixel/virtex shaders and high polygon counts together with high BW requirements demand much more than CPU power. You need a fast graphics chip, very very fast graphics memory, a fast interface, a fast and a solid chipset. CPU speed comes last togethor with the system memory.

As for multithreading its a gimmick, it only helps if your doing multiple things at once say encodeing a DIVX movie while rendering a 3d scene at the same time. Its usless if your only focussing on one thing, nothing beats real HW, dont expect QUAD CPU performance from a multithreaded G5, it simply doesnt work like that.

Wow..

Let us look at all the flaws in this post.

1.) "The Power is good, but unfortunately only on paper"
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5160704.html

2.)"Stability and reliability is also flakey and needs a kick to bring it on par with the competition"

Every POWER CPU has two transistors for every one, to double check the results were accurate. This is necessary for government and military agencies that require perfect results each time. If reliability was a problem with the POWER architecture, would there be 159 IBM supercomputers in the Top500?

3.)"As for dual cores CPUS, U SPARC 4's are being deployed as we speak, iam waiting for the new blade to be released"

IBM POWER4 has had dual cores, along with integrated memory controller since it's introduction at MPF in 2000. SUN is just now reaching dual core status, and Intel has an Itanium in the works that is dual core, AMD a dual Opteron as well in the K9 series of CPU's. POWER is ahead of the game and trailblazing where the rest of the industry is headed.

4.) "As for multithreading its a gimmick"

Not sure when a CPU can push two threads down the pipeline at once was a gimmick... yes some applications tend to find better use of SMT than others, but that is simply because the applications are not highly threaded, or threaded at all, so of course there will be no speed advantage there.

-PPCTech

wrldwzrd89
Feb 18, 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by army_guy
As for the gaming issue, the G5 was not designed to play games period. Yes you can play games but only after waiting months for a PC to MAC port and then the speed cannot be compared to an equivalent x86 machine. The requirements for playing games have changed over the years as most of the processing (2/3rd's) is done by the graphics chip, however with anti-alliasing, filtering, pixel/virtex shaders and high polygon counts together with high BW requirements demand much more than CPU power. You need a fast graphics chip, very very fast graphics memory, a fast interface, a fast and a solid chipset. CPU speed comes last togethor with the system memory.

You're forgetting about the 2D games and games that come out first for the Mac. Granted, there aren't many of either, but those types of games can run as good or better than their PC equivalents (if there is in fact a PC equivalent; some of this software is Mac-only). I am going to contribute to this base by writing a 2D game that is designed for Mac.

army_guy
Feb 18, 2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by PPCTech
Wow..

Let us look at all the flaws in this post.

1.) "The Power is good, but unfortunately only on paper"
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5160704.html

2.)"Stability and reliability is also flakey and needs a kick to bring it on par with the competition"

Every POWER CPU has two transistors for every one, to double check the results were accurate. This is necessary for government and military agencies that require perfect results each time. If reliability was a problem with the POWER architecture, would there be 159 IBM supercomputers in the Top500?

3.)"As for dual cores CPUS, U SPARC 4's are being deployed as we speak, iam waiting for the new blade to be released"

IBM POWER4 has had dual cores, along with integrated memory controller since it's introduction at MPF in 2000. SUN is just now reaching dual core status, and Intel has an Itanium in the works that is dual core, AMD a dual Opteron as well in the K9 series of CPU's. POWER is ahead of the game and trailblazing where the rest of the industry is headed.

4.) "As for multithreading its a gimmick"

Not sure when a CPU can push two threads down the pipeline at once was a gimmick... yes some applications tend to find better use of SMT than others, but that is simply because the applications are not highly threaded, or threaded at all, so of course there will be no speed advantage there.

-PPCTech

Unless youve had first hand experience with the power workstations all I can say is stability and reliability was flakey and no it wasnt a dodgy machine as I had 3 replacements. The issue could of been in the OS but most of thought otherwise. The quality of the machine was a joke, not what you would expect from IBM. IMO it wouldnt surprise me if they were repeating the GXP60/70 Hard Drive quality issues. They go on and on about it saying they were overused beyond thier 8 hour per day usage, and they aint got the balls to admit that what actually happened was that they had a ton of faullty components and then decided to make use of them to save money and then screw the consumer.

army_guy
Feb 18, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
You're forgetting about the 2D games and games that come out first for the Mac. Granted, there aren't many of either, but those types of games can run as good or better than their PC equivalents (if there is in fact a PC equivalent; some of this software is Mac-only). I am going to contribute to this base by writing a 2D game that is designed for Mac.

I was refering to 3D games.

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 18, 2004, 02:32 PM
Hey i just have to mention for army guy, most all games are still cpu bound that is why a 9800 in a G4 doesnt do much for frame rates. the video card still has to be fed and a G4 cant feed a 9800. G4 is the bottleneck. now a P4 at 3.2 is a whole nother matter. P4 is still king and we do not yet have a chip that can match it one on one. At least the 970fx will get us very close.

army_guy
Feb 18, 2004, 02:50 PM
Yes they are CPU bound but it depends on the resulution your running, antialiasing and the 3D engine. You cant run a $400-$600 video card in a G4 it doesnt make sense. If you have that kind of money to spend then you would be running it in a highend machine anyway comensense.

HiRez
Feb 18, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Hey i just have to mention for army guy, most all games are still cpu bound that is why a 9800 in a G4 doesnt do much for frame rates. the video card still has to be fed and a G4 cant feed a 9800. G4 is the bottleneck. now a P4 at 3.2 is a whole nother matter. P4 is still king and we do not yet have a chip that can match it one on one. At least the 970fx will get us very close. I don't agree with this, a dual G5 has plenty of processing power to feed a 9800 (but the G4 is underpowered). The main reason that games are slower on Macs than on PCs is that they are written to the DirectX API, whereas Macs must do everything in OpenGL. Graphics cards similarly are all optimized for DirectX performance first, and OpenGL a distant second. Until that changes there's not much that can be done about it. Though really Halo is the only game I've seen bog down a dual G5/Radeon 9800 rig. Most other game engines, like Quake III Team Arena, run very well on that machine. If a P4 gets 380 fps, and a dual G5 "only" gets 275 fps, is that really such a big deal? For most gamers, the performance is going to be adequate.

army_guy
Feb 18, 2004, 06:18 PM
the performance is adequate, dont forget the DUAL will actually be slightly slower due to the overhead and games dont make use of the 2nd CPU anyway. As long as your running them at high res with anti-aliasing then the G5 is OK.

invaLPsion
Feb 18, 2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
the performance is adequate, dont forget the DUAL will actually be slightly slower due to the overhead and games dont make use of the 2nd CPU anyway. As long as your running them at high res with anti-aliasing then the G5 is OK.

OK?????????????

Try "Amazing!" Especially after these new powermac updates at speeds topping out between 2.5 and 3GHz and with the radeon 9800 pro mac special edition's release alongside of them.

reorx
Feb 18, 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
the performance is adequate, dont forget the DUAL will actually be slightly slower due to the overhead and games dont make use of the 2nd CPU anyway. As long as your running them at high res with anti-aliasing then the G5 is OK.

If anything, a well designed MP system will utilize a higher percentage of a single cpu on an 100% cpu/memory bound application. When you bring up your game on our PC, even though it is running a "Windows" OS, other tasks still context swtich in the background on that single CPU, reducing the percentage of total cpu that the game gets.... On an MP system, cpu affinity will allow for at higher percentage of that cpu to be used for a given application, diverting other processes to the less-loaded cpu. The app doesn't have to to be MP aware to take advantage of this.

reorx
Feb 18, 2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
As for multithreading its a gimmick, it only helps if your doing multiple things at once say encodeing a DIVX movie while rendering a 3d scene at the same time. Its usless if your only focussing on one thing, nothing beats real HW, dont expect QUAD CPU performance from a multithreaded G5, it simply doesnt work like that.

Multithreading is certainly not a gimmick. Both UI facing applications and server-side applications will be much more efficient and responsive if they are designed to use threads.

Creation times and context switch times for threads (for most well written UNIXes), versus the same for processes is much faster and uses far less resources. Now if you're talking about older versions of Solaris, you may have a point, as they pretty much screwed up their thread implementation (too big, too slow).

For problem spaces where FORTRAN would be the language of choice (ie non-dynamic systems) you may have a point. You ARE only doing one thing at a time, and probably won't gain much from the advances in software development since the mainframe days.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
P4 is still king and we do not yet have a chip that can match it one on one. At least the 970fx will get us very close.

I'm not so confident of this. I've heard reports on these forums that we won't get 'very close' to Pentium-like speeds until IBM releases the PowerPC 975 (or PowerPC 980, if you prefer its old name).

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by reorx
If anything, a well designed MP system will utilize a higher percentage of a single cpu on an 100% cpu/memory bound application. When you bring up your game on our PC, even though it is running a "Windows" OS, other tasks still context swtich in the background on that single CPU, reducing the percentage of total cpu that the game gets.... On an MP system, cpu affinity will allow for at higher percentage of that cpu to be used for a given application, diverting other processes to the less-loaded cpu. The app doesn't have to to be MP aware to take advantage of this.

This is assuming you have perfect SMP implementation and are CPU bound, unfortunetly your not cpu bound when running games at high res together with anti-aliasing, the bottle neck is the graphics card and memory bandwidth. Although I should say that this problem has been solved in the NV40 which will have 45-50GB/s memory bandwidth which is perfect ;) + PCI express so SMP will probably increase peformance abit but not by a significant amount until games are SMP aware.

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by reorx
Multithreading is certainly not a gimmick. Both UI facing applications and server-side applications will be much more efficient and responsive if they are designed to use threads.

Creation times and context switch times for threads (for most well written UNIXes), versus the same for processes is much faster and uses far less resources. Now if you're talking about older versions of Solaris, you may have a point, as they pretty much screwed up their thread implementation (too big, too slow).

For problem spaces where FORTRAN would be the language of choice (ie non-dynamic systems) you may have a point. You ARE only doing one thing at a time, and probably won't gain much from the advances in software development since the mainframe days.

All iam saying is that nothing beats real hardware, a DUAL multi-threaded machine will note compete wilth a QUAD cpu machine. The fact is Apple will probably try to pass this on in its marketing saying you can have QUAD cpu performance using DUAL CPU's, it wouldnt surprise me.

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by invaLPsion
OK?????????????

Try "Amazing!" Especially after these new powermac updates at speeds topping out between 2.5 and 3GHz and with the radeon 9800 pro mac special edition's release alongside of them.

Yes OK, not amazing, again if your playing games get a P4/FX, anyway the hardcore gamers build thier own machines anyway Apple machines are out of the question.

MacQuest
Feb 19, 2004, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by agreenster
...I wont trade in my Xeon until I can see matched performance from a G5.

:rolleyes: Pffff...¨matched performance?!¨...

The G5´s have been there, done that, and yes they will soon TROUNCE Inhell´s processors and the x86 architecture overall.

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 07:17 AM
I dont think so, x86 is here to stay, for gaming and professional EDA applications. I dont see Cadence porting $500k-$1m tools to the G5 let alone OSX, they dont even do it for the Power 4 series (only the basic tools and old versions). Unless youve had 1st hand experience with an Itanium 2 those words are rediculous. Its faster than the Power 4 whether people like it or not (proved by running HSpice simulations for database sizes ranging from 1GB-14GB) assuming youve set it up correctly.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by army_guy
I dont think so, x86 is here to stay, for gaming and professional EDA applications. I dont see Cadence porting $500k-$1m tools to the G5 let alone OSX, they dont even do it for the Power 4 series (only the basic tools and old versions).

So many people HOPE x86 is here to stay. The problem with x86 is that it has been extended many times, which creates a huge mess of legacy code issues. I think Intel should transition away from x86 to a new architecture, similar to the transition from Motorola's 68k architecture to IBM & Motorola's PowerPC 601 (and subsequent 603, 604, G3, etc.). This step, although it would be hard for Intel, Microsoft, and all the PC makers, would help Intel in the long run. There will be temporary benefits for IBM while Intel makes the transition, but those will be erased once the new processor line is in full production. My personal choice for a new Intel architecture would be based on the Pentium M, but without all the CISC baggage (RISC or EPIC architecture).

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 07:46 AM
DOnt forget that when the Opteron is running in full 64-bit mode (64-bit OS + 64-bit Application/Driver) you dont deal with the x86 baggage. Intel should transistion but they cant due to the numerous x86 applications. The EDA tools are currently being ported to 64-bit Opteron so iam not worried about my applications. And games, well 64-bit versions will come but what about the existing 32-bit libraries of games people have? The other tools Iam concerned about are Maya, Softimage and Mental Ray which Ive no doubt believe are currently being ported. Iam assuming microsoft will port the major office tools including office, visio etc... What als0 comes with porting is that when an application is allready mature, solid and rock stable it suddenly becomes the oposite.

The pentium m is essentially a heavely modified pentium 3 with out the long pipeline of the pentium 4, but still x86.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by army_guy
DOnt forget that when the Opteron is running in full 64-bit mode (64-bit OS + 64-bit Application/Driver) you dont deal with the x86 baggage. Intel should transistion but they cant due to the numerous x86 applications. The EDA tools are currently being ported to 64-bit Opteron so iam not worried about my applications. And games, well 64-bit versions will come but what about the existing 32-bit libraries of games people have? The other tools Iam concerned about are Maya, Softimage and Mental Ray which Ive no doubt believe are currently being ported. Iam assuming microsoft will port the major office tools including office, visio etc... What als0 comes with porting is that when an application is allready mature, solid and rock stable it suddenly becomes the oposite.

Good point! I forgot about x86-64. Still, though, x86-64 is actually yet another extension to x86.

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 07:53 AM
The other mode does have the x86 baggage though (64-bit OS + 32 bit application) so again x86 style code. For the full benefit you have to have 64-bit OS + 64-bit application AND 64-bit drivers then and only then can you avoid x86 and it all runs nicely and quite fast I should say.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 07:56 AM
The only problem, then, is getting x86-64 deployed widely. So far, AMD is the only chip maker (that I know of) making x86-64 processors. I believe Intel is going to join in the future, though. That step will speed along deployment of x86-64. However, Microsoft still needs to make a version of Windows that fully supports and uses x86-64 for it to be worthwhile to deploy.

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 08:00 AM
Intel is going to strap on 64-bit entension to the existing pentium 4 hence all the flaws with the pentium 4 are carried along with it, this is NOT what AMD did the Opteron is not an Athlon XP with some extensions. Intel is taking the quick way out, they were relying on Itanium to provide the 64-bit platform. IMO the current prescot in fact has these extensions allready but disabled, remember the 125M transister count? so thats an extra 70M for 512KB of cache? those extra transistors are the extensions!!

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 08:03 AM
Intel is not fooling me. They had this all along and are now playing dumb.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 08:22 AM
army_guy, your post just proves to me how short-sighted Intel can be. Intel clearly got their plans wrong; now they'll pay a high price by losing marketshare to AMD.

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 08:38 AM
Forget about Intel now, there out of the game in both 32-bit and 64-bit aka the Itanium. If only the Itanium was this good 5 years ago then I people would consider it but too little too late I say. AMD is gaining ground in the server segment especially with the 800 series have just been priced slashed and compared to Itanium well you get the picture. The rumur of QUAD Opteron workstations is floating about so Intel has lost in that market as well. As for the gaming market well theres the FX to cover that and performs way better than the P4. And with all the major OEMS except DELL of coarse using Opterons well wheres INTEL. I should also mention CRAY they have a cluster on the way (2-4 WAY node based) custom built with CRAY interconnects and then theres REDSTORM.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 19, 2004, 10:13 AM
Technicaly you cant have a fully compiled 64 bit os right now. THere are NO compilers on the market that can to that in this day and age, although some come close. It seems like when ibm released their g5 compiler alot of people said the same thing, there is no full 64 bit compiler yet.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Technicaly you cant have a fully compiled 64 bit os right now. THere are NO compilers on the market that can to that in this day and age, although some come close. It seems like when ibm released their g5 compiler alot of people said the same thing, there is no full 64 bit compiler yet.

Just curious - what does a compiler have to have to be fully 64-bit? I don't see any reason why a 64-bit program couldn't be compiled on a 32-bit machine, then moved to a 64-bit machine for testing (or if you're lucky enough to have one of those machines that can run 32-bit and 64-bit code natively, like the G5, compiling the program/OS in 32-bit mode and testing it in 64-bit mode).

NusuniAdmin
Feb 19, 2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
Just curious - what does a compiler have to have to be fully 64-bit? I don't see any reason why a 64-bit program couldn't be compiled on a 32-bit machine, then moved to a 64-bit machine for testing (or if you're lucky enough to have one of those machines that can run 32-bit and 64-bit code natively, like the G5, compiling the program/OS in 32-bit mode and testing it in 64-bit mode).

I never said 64 bit compiler, i just said no compiler can compile FULL 64 bit code yet, this is an impossibility. And plus I know someone on the darwin team so I know wut i am talking about :). He said within half a year to a year there should be full compilers that can do full 64 bit code, he also said within 2-3 years when apple gets their whole line 64 bit they are going to release a 32 bit os x and a 64 bit os x.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
I never said 64 bit compiler, i just said no compiler can compile FULL 64 bit code yet, this is an impossibility. And plus I know someone on the darwin team so I know wut i am talking about :). He said within half a year to a year there should be full compilers that can do full 64 bit code, he also said within 2-3 years when apple gets their whole line 64 bit they are going to release a 32 bit os x and a 64 bit os x.

Okay, perhaps I should rephrase my question. What in the heck is full 64-bit code? I thought there was 32-bit code and 64-bit code and that was that (no code of mixed bitness). Are you referring to code that is part 32-bit and part 64-bit?

daveL
Feb 19, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
Okay, perhaps I should rephrase my question. What in the heck is full 64-bit code? I thought there was 32-bit code and 64-bit code and that was that (no code of mixed bitness). Are you referring to code that is part 32-bit and part 64-bit?
Normally, you have a choice at compile time. Say you want 64-bit integer math, but you don't care about addressing memory past 2GB, you can set up your compile to use 64-bit instructions, but keep 32-bit pointers. You can also do it the other way around, with 64-bit memory pointers, but 32-bit instructions. At least that's the way I've seen it implemented in the past; I haven't played around with the G5 compiler modes, yet. It's difficult to do without a G5 ;)

wrldwzrd89
Feb 19, 2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by daveL
Normally, you have a choice at compile time. Say you want 64-bit integer math, but you don't care about addressing memory past 2GB, you can set up your compile to use 64-bit instructions, but keep 32-bit pointers. You can also do it the other way around, with 64-bit memory pointers, but 32-bit instructions. At least that's the way I've seen it implemented in the past; I haven't played around with the G5 compiler modes, yet. It's difficult to do without a G5 ;)

Okay, that makes sense now. What, then, is holding up compilers that can make pure 64-bit code?

daveL
Feb 19, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
Okay, that makes sense now. What, then, is holding up compilers that can make pure 64-bit code?
I don't know. I know you can produce 64-bit code for Sun's ultraSPARC processors, etc with gcc. I'm sure IBM's Power4 compiler can do the same. I haven't investigated whether IBM's xlc compiler for the 970 will gen 64-bit code.

I've read that freeBSD, upon which Darwin/OSX is based, is 64-bit clean.

I guess I'll have to save up for a G5 and try it. :)

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 03:24 PM
All i know is that Itanium compiles FULL 64-bit code, I think you need to hardware compile Itanium code meaning that its not done at the software level like gcc but using a dedicated mahine thats another reason why porting to Itanium is expensive and produces efficient code. Has anyone compiled an Itanium piece of software?

army_guy
Feb 19, 2004, 03:28 PM
so OSX FULL 64-bit is to come in 2-3 years??

Thats what I said and no one believed me.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 19, 2004, 05:35 PM
I can't remember exactly why it cant be compiled for 64 bit right now, but it has something to do with the compilers, i know they would have to rewire the boot strap for 64 bit ppc asm.

centauratlas
Feb 19, 2004, 06:57 PM
I think that the reason we haven't seen the updated PM G5s (and perhaps PB G5s) is IBM.

Take note of the following facts:
1. Apple's xserve G5s are shipping in "6-8 weeks".

2. InfoWorld quotes an IBM spokesman, Feb 13, 2004 (http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/13/HNibmblends_1.html) that says "Samples of the chip have already shipped, and production volumes are increasing." Note, they are producing, but if they were producing at full capacity they'd have said so and not used the language they did.

3. There was an article here (http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=siteInfo&doc_id=30982) that said this:
"IBM is about to deliver its very first volume production of an SOC on 90nm, said Reeves. This will be a design for Apple."
Note that it says "about to".


So, I think it is safe to say they are producing them in some volume, but it is not yet enough to handle xserve G5s, PM G5s (updated with the 970fx of course), and PB G5s all at once.

Thus, I would expect Apple to catch up on the xserve G5s (or at least know *when* they will be able to do so) and then announce upgraded PM G5s at that point to ship as soon as they can after xserve G5 orders.

Until they can handle demand for those two, I doubt you'll see PB G5s. There may be other factors delaying the PB G5s, but 970fx chip supplies may be one of them.

mmmmmk
Feb 19, 2004, 07:26 PM
Everyone here seems to be worried about the speed of a new G5. I don't see what everyone here is complaining about. The G5 is the fastest out there right now, so if apple is smart they will wait awhile for the competition to catch up before releasing another. You have to think in the marketing and sales aspect here. They just released the G5, people are not going to want to upgrade already, and if product updates come out to quick, no one will ever buy. It's a lot nicer to the consumer if when he or she buys the product, he or she has the top of the line for at least 4-6 months. In addition, for the powerbooks, I don't think those will come out any time soon. If anyone here has a G4 they know how hot that runs. The G5 would melt the powerbook. The wattage is still to high. 50 watts would drain the battery to quick. As far as price drops, I wouldn't count on any of that. Apple is known for extreme prices. Look at the new ipod, it's the same price as a 15 gig and a half inch smaller. Who ever buys that is stupid. They have the same battery life, yet one holds a bit more songs than the other. I don't know what Apple was thinking with that. My predictions would be a new G5 by next december at the latest and a new powerbook in a year.

HiRez
Feb 19, 2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by mmmmmk
The G5 would melt the powerbook. The wattage is still to high. 50 watts would drain the battery to quick. As far as price drops, I wouldn't count on any of that. Apple is known for extreme prices. Look at the new ipod, it's the same price as a 15 gig and a half inch smaller. Who ever buys that is stupid.Did you even read any of the posts in this thread? The 970fx that Apple will probably use in the PowerBook G5s does not dissipate 50 watts. That's for a 2.5 GHz running at maximum. The PowerBook G5 will be in the 1.4 GHz - 2.0 GHz range and will use much less maximum power at that speed (and even less under typical use).


And you should also go read the iPod mini thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60828) for many reasons why the mini is not such a stupid idea after all. You don't remember how many people thought the original iPod was the dumbest idea and was doomed to fail either, do you?

ratspg
Feb 19, 2004, 08:51 PM
IBM is surely cranking out the wafers. I am excited for new Powermacs so i can get a g5 for a little less $ !!! :)

daveL
Feb 19, 2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by HiRez
Did you even read any of the posts in this thread? The 970fx that Apple will probably use in the PowerBook G5s does not dissipate 50 watts. That's for a 2.5 GHz running at maximum. The PowerBook G5 will be in the 1.4 GHz - 2.0 GHz range and will use much less maximum power at that speed (and even less under typical use).


And you should also go read the iPod mini thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60828) for many reasons why the mini is not such a stupid idea after all. You don't remember how many people thought the original iPod was the dumbest idea and was doomed to fail either, do you?
Really! I could not agree more. Yes, sir, we only have 100,000 in pre-orders. I think we should cut our losses; this thing's a real loser. Of course, we don't want those PBs running too (note: too) fast, either. We should wait for the competition to get a leg up first. What a crock.

mmmmmk
Feb 19, 2004, 10:47 PM
Take an engineering class. And do the math with the iPod. Is it really worth it?

cripdyke
Feb 20, 2004, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by mmmmmk
Take an engineering class

an engineering class might be warranted if folx thought apple was going to come out with a 50w processor in a new PB anytime soon.

What people were saying (and what you were apparently oblivious to) is that the new 970fx is going to have slower chips that dissapate in the neighborhood of 12-15w. This has been mentioned several times in this thread. What, you can't be bothered to read what people are saying before you respond??

You don't have to put the fastest/hottest chip in the PB just 'cuz it exists. Instead, you might wanna put in the chip that is still blazing fasts yet works with the objective limitations of the device you're creating.

That's basic engineering. Perhaps you should take a class??

mmmmmk
Feb 20, 2004, 01:19 PM
That was what I was trying to get to. I have read the posts here and it seems that more people are interested in the faster processor not a slower one for the PB. Besides that, I can bet most people think the proc speed is the biggest difference, when in fact it is not. If apple was to slap a 1meg+ cache onto a 1ghz G5, it would run close to a 2ghz with a 512 cache. So yes, I have read the books and understand how these things work. A good example of this would be the intel centrino package...the processor runs at a much slower speed than the p4, but because it has a 1meg cache, it runs very close to it but uses much less power.

ktlx
Feb 20, 2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by mmmmmk
A good example of this would be the intel centrino package...the processor runs at a much slower speed than the p4, but because it has a 1meg cache, it runs very close to it but uses much less power.

That is a bad example of what you are trying to claim. There are more differences between the Pentium 4 and Pentium M than simply the cache size. They are very different processor designs with very different design goals.

army_guy
Feb 21, 2004, 08:08 AM
You are right KTLX, the pentium m has nothing to do with the pentium 4, its a heavely modified pentium 3 thats why it performs better than the equivalent pentium 4 at the same clock. The P3 was Intels best CPU for its time not like the P4 which was actually SLOWER than the P3 when it was released!!! and was 500MHz faster in clock!!