IBM's Power 970 [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

tychay

Oct 28, 2002, 03:52 PM

At least another year... great. And that'll be 1.8GHz. Compared to 2.8GHz today. What will a Pentium be in a year? 5.6GHz (Intel actually does twice the speed every year, not like Motorola every 3 years...)
I love macs, but this is just BS!

Hmm, a traditionally pro-PC site writes a highly involved article on the design tradeoffs of a chip that won't be out for another half year and a mac user says that this chip is "BS".

In the next paragraph, the author explains that the comparison is done to compare architectures not performance. The assumption here is that Intel's offering on the desktop will only be a faster rendition of the Pentium 4, else he would have choses the more relevant Itanium or Opteron/Hammer or Pentium 4 XEON. The author wished to discuss design tradeoffs against other desktop CPUs that the readers might be familiar with.

Intel does not "twice"[sic] the speed every year. I think it is closer to doubling every year and a half. The problem is that Motorola's 25% speed boost in almost a year is pathetically slow by industry standards; not that Intels clock speed gains are incredibly impressive. Because of its extra long pipeline with spare stages thrown into the P4's design to account for anticipated wire delay, it would be surprising that IBM would have a chip that was as fast as a P4 in terms of clock speed, especially since it uses the same process, with smaller stage pipelines, and will be out in quantity in a year.

These speed gains do not come without a penalty (which you'd realize if you read some of the author's referenced articles). This is why the P4 was deservedly panned when it first came out--it was a worse performer than the PIII. The P4 design gave it room to grow (by increasing clock speed) and now it isn't so panned. It's not universally loved, either.

As a supposed mac lover, you'd also realize that clock speed is not the end-all/be-all of performance. While it is a factor: if you read the article, you'd see that PowerPC designs are designed more like the inside of McDonalds (many short lines served slowly serving multiple people at ocne) than the Pentium-4-like drive thru (one long line served very fast). The interesting thing here is IBM is trying have it both ways (multiple lines served fast).

How fast is an Itanium? (much slower than a Pentium 4). How much does it cost? (more)? Yet despite the slower clock speed, Intel seems to think that it is a good enough performer to justify the premium.

Every day, R&D departments are buying Athlon computers for HPC even though they're "slower" than the Pentium 4. People still buy Pentium III's for low-end servers despite the fact they are slower (though I believe this will flip to Pentium 4 XEONs next year). Right now, much smarter people than you an me spend $60k+ on n-way pSeries servers from IBM with a chip with a similar design to the PPC970 running at <1.5GHz. Ask yourself why?

As to whether or not this will compete with Intel P4's or AMD Opterons--only time will tell. Right now, such a comparison is "BS" just like saying "the IBM PPC 770's 1.8GHz is BS" is itself a bunch of "BS".

Nice flamebait. Try again.

ogun7

Oct 28, 2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by TheT

At least another year... great. And that'll be 1.8GHz. Compared to 2.8GHz today. What will a Pentium be in a year? 5.6GHz (Intel actually does twice the speed every year, not like Motorola every 3 years...)
I love macs, but this is just BS!

Once again, we have a "Mac fan" that has TOTALLY missed the boat in what the power of this processor really means to desktop computing and is completely blinded by MHz. If 64-bit processing, 2 Altivec units, 200 instructions moving through the processor at any given time and up to 8 way SMP aren't enough for you, then get a SGI or Sun workstation, and stay away from Macs.

I guess I took the bait.

copperpipe

Oct 28, 2002, 04:02 PM

Great post Tychay!

MrMacMan

Oct 28, 2002, 04:13 PM

Well again the next generation processors come a little late to the computing party...but heck it will be a good show that macs too can makes these processors. :D
Wait How is the processor gonna support 900MHz DDR ram??? :confused:
What is the current ram speed, aint it much slower? Aint system ram up to like 533 now, a far cry from 900...:rolleyes:

eric_n_dfw

Oct 28, 2002, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman
Well again the next generation processors come a little late to the computing party...but heck it will be a good show that macs too can makes these processors. :D
A little late for what?

Hawthorne

Oct 28, 2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by tychay

see that PowerPC designs are designed more like the inside of McDonalds (many short lines served slowly serving multiple people at ocne) than the Pentium-4-like drive thru (one long line served very fast). The interesting thing here is IBM is trying have it both ways (multiple lines served fast).

That is absolutely the best and easiest way I've ever heard to describe the differences between PowerPC and x86 architecture. Very nicely done, tychay.

MrMacMan

Oct 28, 2002, 04:21 PM

Hm... the real speedy processors we see coming before this processor.
In real life situations the P4 smokes The G4 for example. Don't go all ************ Photoshop on me...:o
The processors coming may match the Power 970 but I just hope we are not late to get some of the market share coming off this.

JamesDP

Oct 28, 2002, 04:40 PM

Nicely put, tychay. I think a lot of people miss the point when it comes to the whole Apple vs. PC debate. Yes, PC makers and Apple are both vying for the personal computer market, but they do it in entirely different ways.

In a market as competitive as the PC market where everybody and their grandma can put together a white box and sell it to Joe Q. Public, then you need to come out with newer, faster computers every couple of months that are above and beyond the previous version enough that someone's gonna look at the specs and say, "Hey, I need a faster computer." Truthfully, they don't need a faster computer - they fall prey to marketing, advertising, and insidious software makers who continue to bloat programs with unnecessary "features" and poor coding that require a faster computer to make sense of the muckety-muck inside.

Apple, while selling to the "PC Market", is essentially competing with no one, hence the less frequent updates to computer speed, which they don't really focus on in the first place. Apple's focus is on integration (although not in the twisted sense that Microsoft does) of software and hardware, a seamless user experience, features (in particular, their "i" programs), and the "digital lifestyle". And they are good at what they do. I switched two months ago and I wouldn't go back to PCs for anything. The joy of computing just isn't there. I don't dread doing work on my Mac the way I did for my home PC and the way I still do for my work PC. PCs just don't offer that experience, no matter what the pseudo-IT-genius-uber-geek-"well-you-must-be-doing-something-wrong"-crowd say. I'm a 20-year PC user. I know what I'm doing. PC makers and PC software makers, however, do not.

And personally, I think trying to compare Macs and PCs, while no doubt fun for your average troll or philosophical type, is a waste of time. While they do similar things, they go about them in dissimilar ways. And trying to compare speeds between the two based on something like MHz/GHz is not even apples and oranges, apples and dog crap or apples and skyscrapers. If Macs ran PC software natively the same way PCs did and the only difference was the CPU and internal components, then I could understand people being outraged over such a huge gap in MHz/GHz. But they don't. Macs run Mac software, and they run it well. While there is a large numerical difference between PCs and Macs, the apparent speed (at least in my experience so far) is similar, if not equal, and that's all that truly matters. End of story. Benchmarks are meaningless. It's what you see on the screen that matters. Some Photoshop filter takes 20 seconds longer on a Mac than it does on a PC? Even if you do it dozens or hundreds of times, do you notice? Are you calling up Adobe and asking for those 20 seconds per filter back? Are you that ridiculous? Let's hope not.

They're just computers, people. Tools. They won't make you feel better about yourself, they won't make you more attractive to women, they won't make your junk bigger. They're just computers, and frankly the need of some people to cause contentions over something so purely meaningless to our lives as processor speeds or benchmarks between Macs and PCs or whatever is so sad that vocabulary to describe it escapes me.

springscansing

Oct 28, 2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by JamesDP

They're just computers, people. Tools. They won't make you feel better about yourself, they won't make you more attractive to women, they won't make your junk bigger. They're just computers, and frankly the need of some people to cause contentions over something so purely meaningless to our lives as processor speeds or benchmarks between Macs and PCs or whatever is so sad that vocabulary to describe it escapes me.

Get off the soapbox man. I am an audio engineer, and I need to do REAL TIME processing. The slower my computer, the less instruments and effects I can run in REAL TIME. Speed doen't matter for photoshop... 20 seconds is no big deal. But when you need to run things in real time, it DOES make a BIG difference. I had to buy a new 867 because my dual 450 simply couldn't run what it needed to in real time at 44100hz.

Audio is a world where its often can do or can't do. Not can do or can do 20 seconds later.

tychay

Oct 28, 2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne

[PowerPC is like the inside of McDonald's while Pentium4 is the drive thru analogy] is absolutely the best and easiest way I've ever heard to describe the differences between PowerPC and x86 architecture. Very nicely done, tychay.

I really wish I could take credit for the McDonald's analogy, but I read it somewhere a year ago. After a bit of hunting, I found it in an article written by the same author (http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/p4andg4e/p4andg4e-2.html)! (scroll to the bottom) This page should be required reading for anyone who has had to defend their platform choice based on performance against Intel-bigots. Even if you're like me and have more Intel boxen than Macs.

Has anyone else who read the article found it interesting that IBM has chosen to "crack" some of the PowerPC operations into smaller ones? After all, the whole point of RISC was to have all instructions be one cycle and avoid the one criticism the author has with the CPU (grouping of uops creating nop bubbles).

It's amazing that twice in one day I find myself referencing Ars Technica. If you told me this four years ago, I wouldn't have believed you.

Take care,

terry
(some of my best friends work for AMD or Intel)

copperpipe

Oct 28, 2002, 06:04 PM

what do you think of your new dual 867? IS it fast enough?...

One thing in these articles that should put any speed freak at ease is that these new powerpc chips are designed to get together (can you say quad?) and have a party, while the x86's are not. Or at least that's my understanding of it. And OS X will be there to take full advantage of it. So do you really think whatever intel has out in a year can take on two of these monsters working together, much less the possibilty of four of them? I very seriously doubt it.

Catfish_Man

Oct 28, 2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by copperpipe
what do you think of your new dual 867? IS it fast enough?...

One thing in these articles that should put any speed freak at ease is that these new powerpc chips are designed to get together (can you say quad?) and have a party, while the x86's are not. Or at least that's my understanding of it. And OS X will be there to take full advantage of it. So do you really think whatever intel has out in a year can take on two of these monsters working together, much less the possibilty of four of them? I very seriously doubt it.

Correction: [i]Intel's desktop[i] chips are not designed for multiprocessing. AMD's chips do a moderately nice job. Their new chips are going to do a very nice job. The 970 will also do a very nice job, but will be hard to make a northbridge for. I wouldn't be worried about the Pentium 4 if we get dual processor or dual core 970s (dual core seems like it should be very practical when they switch to .09 micron). I would be more worried about AMD's chips (assuming they're still in business).

matznentosh

Oct 28, 2002, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by tychay

How fast is an Itanium? (much slower than a Pentium 4).

what makes you say the Itanium is slower to desktop Intel chips? I thought most sites consider the Itanium to be superior at processing power (not superior in cost or heat generation of course).

tychay

Oct 28, 2002, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by matznentosh

what makes you say the Itanium is slower to desktop Intel chips? I thought most sites consider the Itanium to be superior at processing power (not superior in cost or heat generation of course).

Thus proving the point. As another poster mentioned, the Itanium runs at 900Mhz or 1Ghz. Yet you mention that most sites consider the Itanium to be supperir at processing power. Let's put this together as an inconsistent triad:
[list=1]
Speed is equal to performance (or that speed is the most important indicator of performance).
The Intel Pentium 4 is faster than the Itanium (3x the clockrate).
The Itanium is superior at processing power.
[/list=1]

One of these has to give. If I work at it, I can come up with a benchmark (albeit contrived) to "prove" (3), but isn't it easier if we relax (1) by adding "work done per clockcycle is just as important" and perhaps "optimizing for different tasks lead to different design goals"?

Recall my original point was, if (1) is true and the IBM PPC970 running at 1.8Ghz is "BS", then Intel should not be selling processors today that are 1/2 the clockspeed of the PPC970 for more than the price of a Pentium 4. Therefore (1) is naive and it is deliberately misleading to compare two different types of processors based on speed.

The problem is IBM already has a processor for the Itanium's market (the Power4). So the PPC970 must be targetted for some other (lower end) market. Those markets (and the CPUs targetted at that market in a year) are the low-end server market (Intel Pentium 4 XEON/AMD Opteron/Motorola G4e+updates), the desktop market (Intel Pentium 4/ AMD Athlon/Motorola G4e), and the notebook market (Intel Pentium 4/Motorola G4/IBM G3 Sahara/Transmeta Crusoe). The spec sheet says it can run in any of these three markets, price and availability will determine which markets it enters into.

Is this so unreasonable?

alex_ant

Oct 28, 2002, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by JamesDP
In a market as competitive as the PC market where everybody and their grandma can put together a white box and sell it to Joe Q. Public, then you need to come out with newer, faster computers every couple of months that are above and beyond the previous version enough that someone's gonna look at the specs and say, "Hey, I need a faster computer." Truthfully, they don't need a faster computer - they fall prey to marketing, advertising, and insidious software makers who continue to bloat programs with unnecessary "features" and poor coding that require a faster computer to make sense of the muckety-muck inside.
I can't tell whether or not you're taking apart your own argument here. You say that few people really need these newer, faster computers, but then you say that software developers continue to add bloat to their programs which requires progressively faster and faster computers. Of course a 486 will run the lean-and-mean Windows 3.1 and all appropriate software just as well as it did eight years ago, but the problem is that nobody wants to use Windows 3.1 anymore (nevermind that it isn't even available). They want the newest, most featureful software. Software really has improved over the years, as it continues to, and the fact that it continues to will mean that those who want to take advantage of ever-improving software will be needing faster and faster computers for the forseeable future.

Apple, while selling to the "PC Market", is essentially competing with no one, hence the less frequent updates to computer speed, which they don't really focus on in the first place.
Apple is competing as hard as it can with the PC market. The less frequent updates to their machines that you see are due not so much to complacence but to 1) the fact that they really can't improve their computers to the point where it makes financial sense to do so, in part because they haven't got fast enough chips from Motorola and IBM, and 2) they have a large, passionate, loyal customer base who is willing to live with this complacency.
Apple's focus is on integration (although not in the twisted sense that Microsoft does) of software and hardware, a seamless user experience, features (in particular, their "i" programs), and the "digital lifestyle". And they are good at what they do. I switched two months ago and I wouldn't go back to PCs for anything. The joy of computing just isn't there. I don't dread doing work on my Mac the way I did for my home PC and the way I still do for my work PC. PCs just don't offer that experience, no matter what the pseudo-IT-genius-uber-geek-"well-you-must-be-doing-something-wrong"-crowd say. I'm a 20-year PC user. I know what I'm doing. PC makers and PC software makers, however, do not.
This is all true, very true
And personally, I think trying to compare Macs and PCs, while no doubt fun for your average troll or philosophical type, is a waste of time. While they do similar things, they go about them in dissimilar ways.
There are different levels on which to compare Macs and PCs. If you're trying to decide between buying a Mac and a PC, why can't you compare them? They're both intended to be used for more or less the same things, by more or less the same people. Of course they can be compared.

And trying to compare speeds between the two based on something like MHz/GHz is not even apples and oranges, apples and dog crap or apples and skyscrapers.
If Macs ran PC software natively the same way PCs did and the only difference was the CPU and internal components, then I could understand people being outraged over such a huge gap in MHz/GHz. But they don't. Macs run Mac software, and they run it well.
The problem is that Macs are running Mac software increasingly slower than PCs are running PC software. The fact that a person can run Photoshop 7.0 on a fast Mac and Photoshop 7.0 on a fast PC and watch the PC piss all over the Mac is evidence enough that the Mac needs improvement. In this case, it's not apples to dog crap, it's very clearly apples to apples. It doesn't matter what special "whatever" the Mac has under the hood - it matters how fast this gaussian blur takes to render. This is why these threads about IBM's "new chip that's going to save us all" are so popular. The Mac needs a faster chip and it needs it yesterday. Sure, a lot of people may not need a faster processor now, but for better or worse, it's the most demanding 5% of computer users who will be the ones who will be deciding where the computing industry will be tomorrow, not the other 95%.
While there is a large numerical difference between PCs and Macs, the apparent speed (at least in my experience so far) is similar, if not equal, and that's all that truly matters. End of story.
That's very good for you. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who will disagree with you, and that number is growing quickly every day.
Benchmarks are meaningless. It's what you see on the screen that matters. Some Photoshop filter takes 20 seconds longer on a Mac than it does on a PC? Even if you do it dozens or hundreds of times, do you notice?
20 seconds * 100 times = 2,000 seconds = about a half hour. Just to continue this, to use a graphic designer who does this as a living for an example: 30 minutes/day * 5 days/week * 4 weeks/month = 600 minutes = 10 hours, or slightly more than an entire work day each month, lost because the Mac can't keep up with the PC. And that's not just lost time, that's lost money. Now assuming you're a graphic designer, this becomes a question of economics. Does using a Mac and all its advantages (whatever they are) make up for the initial higher cost of that Mac plus the fact that it loses one day per month in lost productivity?

This doesn't only apply to graphic designers, of course - it applies to every job whether commercial or not at which Macs are used. Windows keeps getting better, PC hardware keeps getting faster, and as a result, the incentive to buy Apple is becoming less and less clear.

scem0

Oct 28, 2002, 08:21 PM

With the low power consumption we can see new enclosures, and multiprocessors. Yes, multi. :D What i am saying is maybe we will have the cube back (with dual processors), dual processor laptops, or quad processor powermacs. Hey, we have no idea what apple might make of the low power consumption - but I look forward to seeing.

Note - This processor isn't really going to outperform other companies processors by much, but it will come in multi-processors, making it faster. That is my view of this processor. The only difficulty is waiting for it......

Chryx

Oct 28, 2002, 09:16 PM

With the low power consumption we can see new enclosures, and What i am saying is maybe we will have the cube back (with dual processors),

Nope, not gonna happen, the PPC970 is relatively low power for a processor in that performance catagory, but it's NO WHERE NEAR cool enough to stick in an 8"x8"x8" cube (well, maybe ONE of them with active cooling)

Dr. Distortion

Oct 29, 2002, 03:43 AM

All G1/G2/G3/G4 processors have a unit which can execute 68k code... Will the Power 970 also be able to execute old 68k apps (under Classic)?

Chryx

Oct 29, 2002, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Dr. Distortion
All G1/G2/G3/G4 processors have a unit which can execute 68k code... Will the Power 970 also be able to execute old 68k apps (under Classic)?

No they don't, 68k emulation on Macs has always been handled in software.

eric_n_dfw

Oct 29, 2002, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Chryx

No they don't, 68k emulation on Macs has always been handled in software.
Correct.

Here's an old link at MacKiDo that talked about the over-emulation myth in early PowerMac Systems. http://www.mackido.com/Myths/emulation.html

(It's quite dated - I wish the PPC speed advantages he speaks of in the article still held true! :( )

locovaca

Oct 29, 2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by scem0
Note - This processor isn't really going to outperform other companies processors by much, but it will come in multi-processors, making it faster. That is my view of this processor. The only difficulty is waiting for it......

Not necessarily true at all. Just because it can go into SMP configurations doesn't mean you're going to see a large speed boast. First and foremost, for the apps that a professional will use, anything over 2 cpus will start to become diminishing returns in a real hurry (most of these apps are designed with only two cpus in mind... why waste time developing an app for a system that not only doesn't exist, but will be painfully difficult to optimize for). Probably the only area that you will need more than 2 cpus will be the high end server, and that is a market that apple isn't in yet, and will need to create a new product line to enter. Xserve ain't a high end server.

And, on a second note, this processor won't do SMP any better than a G4. SMP relies very little on the processor, but instead on the chipset it runs on. All the processor does is do the work that's fed to it- it does not make the choice of what to work on. So, if the chipset is better at SMP (which can be a debateable point, since SMP is a pretty mature concept and I think the G4 does it quite well), that should be attributed to the gains that you are claiming, not the new CPU.

Chryx

Oct 29, 2002, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by locovaca
this processor won't do SMP any better than a G4.

If I'm remembering the articles I read last week correctly, the PPC970 will do SMP better than the G4 simply because it's point to point between the processor and the northbridge, rather than a shared bus architecture. (think Athlon EV6 verses P3 GTL+)

TheT

Oct 29, 2002, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by ogun7

Once again, we have a "Mac fan" that has TOTALLY missed the boat in what the power of this processor really means to desktop computing and is completely blinded by MHz. If 64-bit processing, 2 Altivec units, 200 instructions moving through the processor at any given time and up to 8 way SMP aren't enough for you, then get a SGI or Sun workstation, and stay away from Macs.

I guess I took the bait.
I did not totally miss the boat... the reason I sit in front of a mac right now is that I think they're better, and I don't think that GHz are everything... I know that the macs out there right now will kick every P4's ass. As for the Itanium, I'm not sure about that, I 've never seen one performing...
My point is that they have 1.8 now, and they will be able to sell this chip in a year. Intel (and AMD, which produces the faster processor IMO) will not sleep during that time, and they will have at least 3.5 GHz for desktops... and those chips are cheap, not like those high-end server processors. Intel will probably bring the Itanium up to 2GHz by that time, too. Apple will still have more expensive, but compareable products, if they use the chip, sure. I'm not saying this will ruin Apple or anything like that, cause we've seen that Apple actually does good on the consumer market , though they are more expensive.
I said "This is BS" because I'm just upset that IBM can't do any better (well, they already do better than Motorola)... I mean, you don't need all this expensive high-end stuff as a consumer. Sure, professionals will profit. But as a consumer, I want a simple processor, that runs the system, browser, MP3 encoder and video software fast... stuff like that. And don't tell me, that a P4 in one of those actual Dell computers doesn't do better than a 700MHz iMac, which is more expensive.
And still, I am a loyal Mac user, because Apple just knows how to make great products. And I think that in one year, speed won't matter that much anyways... computers today can do everything a consumer needs in an acceptable amount of time, so people will care more about software and the OS.
Besides that, this is just my opinion, there are a lot of people out there who do need that speed advantage every day for video editing and stuff like that, and they will be willing to pay a high price.
The main reason I use a mac is the software, mainly the great OS and apps from apple, not because I think that my iMac is faster than a PC. Because I've done every-day stuff on a PC as well, and for a regular consumer, a PC is simply faster. This new chip won't close the GHz gap, which is not that important, I agree. But it'll get the mac platform closer to the pc performance.

Chryx

Oct 29, 2002, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by TheT
I know that the macs out there right now will kick every P4's ass.

What you know is wrong, as nice a processor as the G4 is, it's no match for a 2.8Ghz P4 with a PC1066 RDram memory subsystem.

the G4 OTOH, is an embedded processor with delusions of grandeur. :)

TheT

Oct 29, 2002, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Chryx

What you know is wrong, as nice a processor as the G4 is, it's no match for a 2.8Ghz P4 with a PC1066 RDram memory subsystem.

the G4 OTOH, is an embedded processor with delusions of grandeur. :)
Point given, I should have said it'll kick every consumer-PCs ass. What I mean is that the actual G4 desktop systems perform better than those Dell-consumer PCs... they'll not beat those really expensive high-end ones :)

eric_n_dfw

Oct 29, 2002, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by TheT

Point given, I should have said it'll kick every consumer-PCs ass. What I mean is that the actual G4 desktop systems perform better than those Dell-consumer PCs... they'll not beat those really expensive high-end ones :)
While I wish I could support you on this, the facts say otherwise - per Dell's web site:
Dell Dimension 4550 Series:
Pentium 4 2.80 Ghz with 533MHz system bus/512K L2 Cache

Customizations (tried to match peripherals and whatnot of a 867 Dual PowerMac):
- 256 MB DDR SDRAM at 333Mhz
- No monitor.
- 64MB DDR NVidia GeForce 4 MX
- 60GB ATA/100 7200RPM HD
- Win XP Pro
- SoundBlaster Live! Digital Sound Card
- Harman Kardon HK-206 Speakers
- Norton AntiVirus 12-month (added that because you really NEED that on WinBlows! :) )
- Dell Jukebox (MusicMatch)
- Dell Picture Studio, Image Expert Standard
- Downgraded to 1 year waranty (to match Apple)
- Standard Dell Movie Studio Bundle

Total Price (before tax/shipping): $1,367
Plus, there's a $100 rebate that I do not think is factored into that price

Compared to $1670 for the cheapest PowerMac tower.

***BUT***
I'd still rather have the Mac at home.:D

TheT

Oct 29, 2002, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

***BUT***
I'd still rather have the Mac at home.:D
Exactly! There's a thread by scem0 somewhere here, who has just recently bought a PC.
The thing is: if you are a student like scem0 or me and only have like 600 bucks, you can get either a 2GHz+ PeeCee or an old G4 400.
Back to the topic: This situation won't change with the 970.. it'll be, just like the G4 was at its introduction, the best processor in a consumer product ever, but too expensive!

TheT

Oct 29, 2002, 12:11 PM

Sorry for double posting...:
Here's the "New Computer" thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=13425)

jefhatfield

Oct 29, 2002, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

While I wish I could support you on this, the facts say otherwise - per Dell's web site:

Compared to $1670 for the cheapest PowerMac tower.

***BUT***
I'd still rather have the Mac at home.:D

it's in the software for me

while windows has improved a lot since the early days, the mac os, whether it is os 8, os 9, or os x, is so much easier to use than windows

and less problematic

now that macs have intel's usb, universal motherboard architecture, and some of the same cd-rom, dvd, and superdirve components/parts, the difference between macs and pcs is most noticeably seen in the operating systems

apple does not have it perfect and never has, but they are light years ahead of windows in their operating system's ease of use for the average, non-techie user

i don't care if PCs go to 3.5 ghz next summer, i will still be happy running os x on a sub-2ghz apple-made computer:D

Telomar

Oct 29, 2002, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by TheT

My point is that they have 1.8 now, and they will be able to sell this chip in a year. Intel (and AMD, which produces the faster processor IMO) will not sleep during that time, and they will have at least 3.5 GHz for desktops... and those chips are cheap, not like those high-end server processors. Intel will probably bring the Itanium up to 2GHz by that time, too.

I said "This is BS" because I'm just upset that IBM can't do any better. I mean, you don't need all this expensive high-end stuff as a consumer. Sure, professionals will profit. But as a consumer, I want a simple processor, that runs the system, browser, MP3 encoder and video software fast... stuff like that. And don't tell me, that a P4 in one of those actual Dell computers doesn't do better than a 700MHz iMac, which is more expensive.You're problem, and I don't mean this to be rude, is you really have no grounding or knowledge of what is coming down the line.

AMD's processors will be around 2 - 2.2 GHz in Q3 2003. That's assuming everything goes perfectly smoothly for them and they don't just do another paper launch.

The Itanium will be around 1.3 - 1.5 Ghz.

I hate to break this to you but all the areas except possibly web browsing (sorry I don't like having to switch browsers for some pages) are generally performed better on a G4 anyway. About the only major flaw right now in the G4 is its FSB. Contrary to popular belief since it stalled it has been keeping up in scaling (by %) reasonably well and there are no signs it won't have a roadmap for the future.

My only complaint would be Apple isn't filtering technology down to the consumer lines fast enough but I believe that is more due to the fact they have nowhere to send their professional line. The PPC970 give the Pro line a future, which leaves the consumer line a little more open to development.

Chryx

Oct 29, 2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Telomar
AMD's processors will be around 2 - 2.2 GHz in Q3 2003. That's assuming everything goes perfectly smoothly for them and they don't just do another paper launch.

FYI, I can buy a 2.06Ghz AthlonXP right now, they are still kinda rare, but they are out there.

Telomar

Oct 29, 2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Chryx

FYI, I can buy a 2.06Ghz AthlonXP right now, they are still kinda rare, but they are out there. I should correct myself and say AMD's performance processors. The clawhammers will clock around there. The current XP processors are a less efficient processor.

barkmonster

Oct 29, 2002, 04:52 PM

Audio is a world where its often can do or can't do. Not can do or can do 20 seconds later.

I agree there, I think it was the guy doing the audio column on Xlr8yourmac a while ago that decribed audio vs graphics needs when it comes to cpu power.

"Audio performance is always black & white, graphics is always shades of grey" or words to that effect.

Just for comparison, and this is a little biased given the different CPUs involved but here goes :

Photoshop (from barefeats)

P4, 2Ghz : Wait 90 seconds (SP action file)
P4, 2Ghz : Wait 73 seconds (MP action file)

G4, 2 x 1Ghz : Wait 101 seconds (SP action file)
G4, 2 x 1Ghz : Wait 48 seconds (MP action file)

Protools LE, dave c test (from DUC)

All results are realtime performance, extension tweaks and custom RAM allocation is used on the macs and various OS settings are used on the PCs aswell for best performance. The test is not MP aware so only 1 cpu is being used for both Protools LE and the Mac OS. PT 6 under OS X promises a 10-15% improvement over PT 5 under OS 9 on an MP aware mac but even that isn't going to be enough from the results we've had so far :

G4, 2 x 800Mhz : 24 tracks + 8 aux (160 realtime plug-ins)

P4, 2.26 Northwood : 24 tracks + 20 aux (220 realtime plug-ins)

The reason the G4 tested is only a dual 800Mhz model and not a dual 1.25Ghz model for example is because the guy who tested it used a very well optimised extension set and audio drive arangement that hasn't been beaten by any of the newer models other people have run the test on. Also, the PC was tested with far lower buffer setting of 128bytes where as the G4 was using a 1024byte buffer. This is kind of like a cache used to buffer the plug-ins and audio tracks so they don't use as much cpu load.

This proves without any doubt at all that the Northwood pentium 4 with it's 512K L2, 133Mhz bus (Quad pumped) and RDRAM smokes the G4 with it's far lower clockspeed, 256K L2, 133Mhz bus and SDRAM.

The dual 1Ghz DDR macs have already being tested and don't perform any better than the older QS models so the extra benefit of the 167Mhz bus vs the 133Mhz bus on the older models is obviously cancelled out by the smaller L3 cache.

The Dave C test is this (just incase you're interested) :

Sample rate = 44100
Hardware Buffers = 1024
Bitdepth = 16bits

1) Open new PT session
2) Create a new mono audio track
3) Add PT stock effects Compressor, 4B-EQ, Slap delay, medium delay, long delay.
4) Select the newly created track from step 2 above.
5) Duplicate the track.
6) Record enable the track.
7) Repeat step 5 until your CPU goes into the red.
8) If your CPU is in the RED delete the last track created. IF it's still in the red, delete another track until the CPU is back in the green. Click on the CPU meter after every deletion to reset the meter.
9) Hit RECORD, and record for 60 sec. Repeat steps 8 and 9 until you can record 60 secs. without cpu meter peaking.

*** N.B. If you can achieve the full 24 tracks with record enabled and can record for 60 secs. start adding Aux tracks with the same plug-ins and keep going until you hit RED.

MrMacMan

Oct 29, 2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Chryx
With the low power consumption we can see new enclosures, and What i am saying is maybe we will have the cube back (with dual processors),

Nope, not gonna happen, the PPC970 is relatively low power for a processor in that performance catagory, but it's NO WHERE NEAR cool enough to stick in an 8"x8"x8" cube (well, maybe ONE of them with active cooling)
The cube will not come back but maybe a bigger version, you see with apple they go the extremes, with the iMac you can't upgrade anything execpt memory, and then you increase loads of money and get the Power mac... The cube was fine except that it had no upgradeablity with like thet iMac...
The IBM 970 shows lots of improvment over the either High MHZ processors with big lines of command (p4) or the lower MHZ processors with short lines of command(G4). Since the IBM 970 has both a higher clock speed and slightly longer lines then the G4.
It should make a good processor.:)

Chryx

Oct 29, 2002, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster

The dual 1Ghz DDR macs have already being tested and don't perform any better than the older QS models so the extra benefit of the 167Mhz bus vs the 133Mhz bus on the older models is obviously cancelled out by the smaller L3 cache.

I'm not convinced that the tests comparing the old and new 1Ghz G4's weren't processor bound (rather than cache/bandwidth bound)

I'd be inclined to not guesstimate the performance in a pro-audio situation off a possibly flawed benchmark set.

skinlayers

Oct 29, 2002, 05:20 PM

Reposted from /. (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43568&threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=136&mode=thread&cid=4552400)

What I really want to know is how much this chip is going to cost. If its cheap for Apple to put 2 or 4 of these in a machine, then how much will it matter that an expensive P4 (P5) out performs it? Hmmm.... The current Wind-Tunnel G4s raised a few eyebrows when it first came out do to the new case design. These things were designed to disapate heat! A HUGE (7 lbs) heat sink w/ matching fan, a small case fan, 2 fans on the power supply, and a ton of ventalation in the back. WAY more cooling that those 2 little G4s require. I think Apple is trying to avoid the fiasco it had with the 1st gen G4s (Yikes? Sawtooth? Can't remember which came first) where they just slapped a G4 onto a G3 mobo. This time around, I believe they're releasing a new mobo first and then put a new proc in it down the road. I've also read stuff in forums suggesting that the power supply for the Wind-Tunnel had way more juice than the system currently demands. Can anyone out there do the math on this? We know how much power the PPC 970 eats. Can we figure out how much heat the Wind-Tunnel case is designed to disapate? What about how much power the power supply is putting? With these numbers, can we figure out how many PPC 970 the Wind-Tunnel case could power and cool? I've been suffering with a 266MHz G3 iMac, and I refuse to upgrade until Apple comes out with a system that really is worth that premium they charge, and a G4 is not it.

alex_ant

Oct 29, 2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by skinlayers
Reposted from /. (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=43568&threshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=136&mode=thread&cid=4552400)

What I really want to know is how much this chip is going to cost. If its cheap for Apple to put 2 or 4 of these in a machine, then how much will it matter that an expensive P4 (P5) out performs it? Hmmm.... The current Wind-Tunnel G4s raised a few eyebrows when it first came out do to the new case design. These things were designed to disapate heat! A HUGE (7 lbs) heat sink w/ matching fan, a small case fan, 2 fans on the power supply, and a ton of ventalation in the back. WAY more cooling that those 2 little G4s require. I think Apple is trying to avoid the fiasco it had with the Sawtooth (1st gen) G4s where they just slapped a G4 onto a G3 mobo. This time around, I believe they're releasing a new mobo first and then put a new proc in it down the road. I've also read stuff in forums suggesting that the power supply for the Wind-Tunnel had way more juice than the system currently demands. Can anyone out there do the math on this? We know how much power the PPC 970 eats. Can we figure out how much heat the Wind-Tunnel case is designed to disapate? What about how much power the power supply is putting? With these numbers, can we figure out how many PPC 970 the Wind-Tunnel case could power and cool? I've been suffering with a 266MHz G3 iMac, and I refuse to upgrade until Apple comes out with a system that really is worth that premium they charge, and a G4 is not it.
Another characteristically worthless self-promoting Slashdot comment - in other words, "What does the label on the power supply say the max output is?"

allpar

Oct 30, 2002, 12:05 PM

There are a few key issues to remember.

First, there's the "Viper effect." If a company makes the fastest machine, it sells the less-fast machines. Having the Viper king of the hill sells Neons...having the Vette king sells Cavaliers...the image crosses over for bragging rights. (Which is why Ford is working on the GT40, using former Viper engineers, and why GM is beefing up the Corvette to try to match the Viper's performance).

Second, there's the "trickle-down effect" which was just alluded to. Fast new machines = good prices on decent-speed used machines. For the price of a new Dell 2 GHz machine, namely $420 with rebate, I can get a blue and white G3...MAYBE...if I shop really hard. Used Macs hold their value - that's both good and bad. The down to earth affordable Macs are beige G3s with their 66 MHz busses, marginal OS X support, etc. (Like mine!) - running at 233-266.

Finally, there's the "entry level" issue. Automakers sold base models that lost money for years to grab new buyers. Ford lost money on Escorts, GM on Cavaliers, Chrysler on Shadows, and reportedly even the Japanese lost money on some of their entry-level cars, but they did it to get loyal customers. Start with a Reliant, end up with a 300M. Well, how's Apple doing there? Not so well. The cheapest machine is the eMac. And for people like me, there's NOTHING. I have a monitor, thank you. I DON'T have $1,600. The last time I can recall Apple without a $1,200 or less computer is...well...the mid-1980s? (Yes, I know about inflation - I just choose to ignore it, since the competition has had DEflation).

I don't recall a time when Apple had such a large price discrepancy against its largest competitor - Dell, at the moment - while not matching performance. And with OS X, the user interface is not even any better...sure, the programs ARE, but the user interface is not.

(Steve should really be begging at Tog's door right now.)

TheT

Oct 30, 2002, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by allpar
And with OS X, the user interface is not even any better...sure, the programs ARE, but the user interface is not.

(Steve should really be begging at Tog's door right now.)
That's your opinion! A lot of people, me included, love the OSX interface. I personally hate the look & feel of windows, even WinXP, which is already better than those grey other versions. Sure, the WinXP interface might be faster than the one from OSX, because OSX has some 'useless' stuff like trasparancy and window shading that takes a hell of a lot processor power. But this 'useless' stuff makes it more fun to work with the computer, and it just looks better. Besides that, I just think the main idea of the MacOS (menu bar on the top, apple menu, system prefs, column view and so on) is better than Windows, especially WinXP with that IMO really horrible start-menu. When I put a CD in my drive, I just expect it to be on the desktop, not in some folder... it just makes more sense!
Again, this is my personal opinion, and it doesn't have to do anything with the 970 anyways ;) I totally agree with you on the rest... on the one hand, I'm glad my three-year-old mac is still worth something and still runs the new system well. But it's also hard to buy a 'new' computer with a limited budget.

nixd2001

Oct 31, 2002, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by tychay

Has anyone else who read the article found it interesting that IBM has chosen to "crack" some of the PowerPC operations into smaller ones? After all, the whole point of RISC was to have all instructions be one cycle and avoid the one criticism the author has with the CPU (grouping of uops creating nop bubbles).

I was talking about this to a friend, having referred him to the AT article. He's spent a while playing with embedded PPCs. His take was that PPC is an architecture and that different physical implementations will make different choices on hows to approach the architecture. So there's a degree of implementation independence in the PPC ISA. Calling PPC a RISC has always been a little contradictory to the R, IMHO :p Lot's of the original sounding cool and revolutionary ideas have had some bumps along the way: delay slots sounded good until superscalar processors came along, single cycle everything was find when the memory system could keep up, and Harvard architecture only really exists in the DSP world these days.I'd make the guess that instructions that need cracking aren't too performance criticial - and if they are, there'll be a -mppc970 (GCC) compiler flag or something that provides a hint to use alternative instructions to correspond to specific implementation characateristics the the CPU.

nixd2001

Oct 31, 2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Chryx

the G4 OTOH, is an embedded processor with delusions of grandeur. :)

Maybe a P4 is a toaster with delusions of cinnamon?

(Off-thread.....)

jefhatfield

Oct 31, 2002, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by nixd2001

Maybe a P4 is a toaster with delusions of cinnamon?

(Off-thread.....)

P4 is low heat...that is why the wintel world puts the desktop version in the wintel laptops...very low heat but the desktop processors run a lithium ion battery down in two hours or so...not good

but there is no overheating with the desktop P4s in the PC laptops

the G4, even being much slower and less capable, does run hot but does not run the battery down too fast in the tibooks

much of the heat goes into the titanium case which makes the user get burned on the legs but at lest that heat is not in the system which would slow it down

heat reduces battery times and slow the processes down

i hope the ibm 970 with its low voltage, will be better

but it's all just speculation right now

tychay

Oct 31, 2002, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
P4 is low heat...that is why the wintel world puts the desktop version in the wintel laptops...very low heat but the desktop processors run a lithium ion battery down in two hours or so...not good

the G4, even being much slower and less capable, does run hot but does not run the battery down too fast in the tibooks

i hope the ibm 970 with its low voltage, will be better

Pardon my ignorance (I'm no notebook expert), but this logic doesn't make sense. If something drains power, it either goes into heat or it goes into work (processing) which then becomes heat. I thought power==heat (eventually).

If something needs more power, then it must necessarily put out more heat.

As for the need to report voltage for consideration in a notebook. I imagine there are a lot of components in a notebook that attenuate the voltage, and while you can underclock a CPU to use less power, it is very hard to have it so it uses less voltage. Thus the CPU voltage requirements (peak voltage requirement must be less than ~1.3V) counts against the budget of the laptop and thus becomes an issue in design. Also, power consumption scales as the square of the voltage (assuming power lost to leakage and DC current is small), so lower voltage requirements (both in the CPU and the components) mean less power needed, thus less need for power dissipation (heat issues). Of course, we already have the power reported separately from the voltage.

The conclusion is that the CPU in the G4 Ti creates less heat than the CPU in a Intel P4 notebook. Ahh! you say, that's not true because the G4 Ti is hot!. Inconsistent with observed fact, you say.

Unless there is a perpetual motion machine in Pentium notebooks, lets consider some alternatives.

A Pentium notebook chip is a "SpeedStep" chip which basically underclocks when it can get away with it--for instance, as soon as it is unplugged from the wall. Since power is proportional to the frequency (again assuming your DC/leak dissapation is negligable), you can get almost twice the battery by moving almost half as fast (which is what the P4SpeedStep does). Those of us who used old Powerbooks are well familiar with this "technology".
The Ti notebook is 1" thin, no full-featured notebook in the PC world comes close. There must be some serious convection problems in this design.
The Ti notebook is designed to dissapate heat through the keyboard and in the body. I don't know how good at conducting titanium is (not good, I imagine), and the keyboard isn't the best place to be dissapating heat.
The Ti case is the conductor, in most PC notebooks the case is a bunch of plastic that insulates the user from the heat (which probably escapes through vents on the sides and back).
The Ti notebook's fan doesn't kick in until the computer gets very hot.
Modern PC notebooks have a liquid cooling (heat pipe) system and two fans. I think the Ti has 1 fan and no heat pipe.
Intel created a program a few years back to look into this very thing. It advocated changes in software (to throttle the voltage between keystrokes, for instance) and lower voltage components (see voltage->power relationship above) to reduce power consumption of notebooks because they were getting outrageous (the notebooks were getting hotter at a faster rate then redesigns could dissipate the heat). Some of that must have paid off by now.
Maybe PC users don't bitch about their computers as much as Mac users. (It always seemed to me that many mac users expect Apple to defy the laws of physics.)

Ironically, in the PC world, heat is the major power issue, not battery life--I guess these people long since gave up the notion of being able to watch a DVD on your notebook on a nonstop flight.

Sound more reasonable?

jefhatfield

Oct 31, 2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by tychay

Pardon my ignorance (I'm no notebook expert), but this logic doesn't make sense. If something drains power, it either goes into heat or it goes into work (processing) which then becomes heat. I thought power==heat (eventually).

If something needs more power, then it must necessarily put out more heat.

As for the need to report voltage for consideration in a notebook. I imagine there are a lot of components in a notebook that attenuate the voltage, and while you can underclock a CPU to use less power, it is very hard to have it so it uses less voltage. Thus the CPU voltage requirements (peak voltage requirement must be less than ~1.3V) counts against the budget of the laptop and thus becomes an issue in design. Also, power consumption scales as the square of the voltage (assuming power lost to leakage and DC current is small), so lower voltage requirements (both in the CPU and the components) mean less power needed, thus less need for power dissipation (heat issues). Of course, we already have the power reported separately from the voltage.

The conclusion is that the CPU in the G4 Ti creates less heat than the CPU in a Intel P4 notebook. Ahh! you say, that's not true because the G4 Ti is hot!. Inconsistent with observed fact, you say.

Unless there is a perpetual motion machine in Pentium notebooks, lets consider some alternatives.

A Pentium notebook chip is a "SpeedStep" chip which basically underclocks when it can get away with it--for instance, as soon as it is unplugged from the wall. Since power is proportional to the frequency (again assuming your DC/leak dissapation is negligable), you can get almost twice the battery by moving almost half as fast (which is what the P4SpeedStep does). Those of us who used old Powerbooks are well familiar with this "technology".
The Ti notebook is 1" thin, no full-featured notebook in the PC world comes close. There must be some serious convection problems in this design.
The Ti notebook is designed to dissapate heat through the keyboard and in the body. I don't know how good at conducting titanium is (not good, I imagine), and the keyboard isn't the best place to be dissapating heat.
The Ti case is the conductor, in most PC notebooks the case is a bunch of plastic that insulates the user from the heat (which probably escapes through vents on the sides and back).
The Ti notebook's fan doesn't kick in until the computer gets very hot.
Modern PC notebooks have a liquid cooling (heat pipe) system and two fans. I think the Ti has 1 fan and no heat pipe.
Intel created a program a few years back to look into this very thing. It advocated changes in software (to throttle the voltage between keystrokes, for instance) and lower voltage components (see voltage->power relationship above) to reduce power consumption of notebooks because they were getting outrageous (the notebooks were getting hotter at a faster rate then redesigns could dissipate the heat). Some of that must have paid off by now.
Maybe PC users don't bitch about their computers as much as Mac users. (It always seemed to me that many mac users expect Apple to defy the laws of physics.)

Ironically, in the PC world, heat is the major power issue, not battery life--I guess these people long since gave up the notion of being able to watch a DVD on your notebook on a nonstop flight.

Sound more reasonable?

i am an engineer in IT so i will try to explain this in the simplest terms

in the manufacturing of processors, there is this concept of using increasingly smaller micron technology to put more transistors in a processor and use less voltage but at the same time have a better clock rate

as it turns out, throughout the industry, processors have generally become more efficient with less voltage until we have the situation we have today with the pentium 4 which could be used in a notebook without draining a battery too fast

at the same time, batteries in notebooks have gone from ni-cad to nimh to liion, with the latter giving the most time

so today, a pentium 4 desktop processor with a relatively good liion battery in a notebook will give the user a swift computing experience and still get good battery life

intel does make a pentium 4 mobile processor which utilizes the battery more efficiently

i hope this helps and pardon me if you know some or all of this stuff concerning laptops/notebooks;)

Telomar

Nov 1, 2002, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

P4 is low heat...that is why the wintel world puts the desktop version in the wintel laptops...very low heat but the desktop processors run a lithium ion battery down in two hours or so...not good

but there is no overheating with the desktop P4s in the PC laptops

the G4, even being much slower and less capable, does run hot but does not run the battery down too fast in the tibooks

much of the heat goes into the titanium case which makes the user get burned on the legs but at lest that heat is not in the system which would slow it downActually the PIV is a rather hot processor compared to the PPC chips. The only reason it has found its way into laptops is because firstly it is cheaper than the mobile version and secondly it has very good thermal management (ie. it lowers it clockspeed as it gets too hot). Just take the heatsink off a PIV and you will see what I mean, although I wouldn't advise leaving it off too long.

You need only look around Intel's website to find their concern with regards to the upward trend of processor heats.

When computer manufacturers first started the practice of packaging desktop CPUs into mobile computers Intel issued a warning regarding possible failures from heat and that their warranty didn't cover it. Most places therefore use a PIV-M, which is a PIV modified for Mobile usage.

The PIV itself generates 68.4W at 2.8 GHz (PIV-M @ 2.2 GHz is ~30/20W). That compares to the G4, which is around 26W @ 1 GHz on an older manufacturing process and 42W @ 1.8 GHz for the PPC970 or 19W for the 1.2 GHz version.

If ever you buy a heatsink it will have a rating in K/W that tells you the temperature rise that will occur given a certain power production of a processor. Generally you will find the PC world uses much better quality heatsinks.

The reason the TiBook has heat problems is because the case itself is part of the heatsink (a particularly poor design) to enable that sort of form factor to be obtained.

jefhatfield

Nov 1, 2002, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Telomar
Actually the PIV is a rather hot processor compared to the PPC chips. The only reason it has found its way into laptops is because firstly it is cheaper than the mobile version and secondly it has very good thermal management (ie. it lowers it clockspeed as it gets too hot). Just take the heatsink off a PIV and you will see what I mean, although I wouldn't advise leaving it off too long.

You need only look around Intel's website to find their concern with regards to the upward trend of processor heats.

When computer manufacturers first started the practice of packaging desktop CPUs into mobile computers Intel issued a warning regarding possible failures from heat and that their warranty didn't cover it. Most places therefore use a PIV-M, which is a PIV modified for Mobile usage.

The PIV itself generates 68.4W at 2.8 GHz (PIV-M @ 2.2 GHz is ~30/20W). That compares to the G4, which is around 26W @ 1 GHz on an older manufacturing process and 42W @ 1.8 GHz for the PPC970 or 19W for the 1.2 GHz version.

If ever you buy a heatsink it will have a rating in K/W that tells you the temperature rise that will occur given a certain power production of a processor. Generally you will find the PC world uses much better quality heatsinks.

The reason the TiBook has heat problems is because the case itself is part of the heatsink (a particularly poor design) to enable that sort of form factor to be obtained.

p4 may not be as cool as an ice cream pop, but have you tried a pentium 4 desktop chip driven laptop...it's really not that hot

now try my old '98 era k6-2 running laptop built on .25 micron technology...now that is hot and it slows down after one hour of use when it heats up...i don't notice that on pentium 4 laptops at all

of course, it may benefit from a better cooling system like the k6-2+ which followed it and was much cooler and nearly 200 mhz faster...i believe that chip employed .18 micron chip fabrication process

and we are still talking old stuff, since neither chip is found in today's laptops which on the low end, will sport an amd duron at twice the speed of the k6-2+

unless, of course, if you want to go that other way and spring for a celeron running laptop on the lower end;)