Motorola's MPC7457 Soon?

[MacRumors]

Information on Motorola's MPC7457 PPC Processor emerged in October 2002, when Motorola accidentally posted a PDF (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/10/20021023170958.shtml) on their website.

The basic information from that PDF provided rumor sites with a roadmap to Motorola's 2003 plans with the PowerPC, with a chart describing a MPC7457 with MHz speeds from 867-1833 in 2003. In 2004, a MPC7457-RM chip plans to incorporate RapidIO technology.

A second PDF discussed at Xlr8yourmac (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/nov02/110402.html#S14674) provided further information on the 7457 with increase in L2 Cache to 512k and L3 to 4MB.

Yesterday, CubeZone posted (http://www.cube-zone.com/#rumor) a rumor that Powerlogix is planning a 1.4GHz upgrade for the Cube, and according to them, the new product will use a 1.4GHz 7457 G4 from Motorola -- with a 512k L2 and 4M L3.

They note that it may not ship for weeks/months...

The basis of this PowerLogix rumor may have been a G4 cube mailing list post (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=3470943335&p=40#5450931055) and a reply which downplays this possibility.

[Freg3000]

New chips for everyone. Keeps on getting better. The 7457 and then the 970. Can't be bad for Apple.

Better late than never Moto. I guess.... :rolleyes:

[Performfreak]

hmm, this is interesting news, any news of progress in the processor realm is good news to me. I'd be interested to see how quickly, if at all, these get introduced into systems

[freemidnight]

Just rumors

And so little!:rolleyes:

[pgwalsh]

I like hearing rumors of possible upcoming procs. Makes me feel like there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe we'll see a new xServe with that proc in it. That would make sense with the large lever 3 cache. But what the hell do I know, I wouldn't know if it would help a server or not. Anyone!?! :)

[Sun Baked]

It's doubtful the chip is a complete rumor, since Motorola is going to be talking about the chip at SNDF 2003 Dallas. This is in March..

SNDF 2003 Dallas Host Processor Topics (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=02VS0llCc5pzMPsvFLn1b23G5nChPn)

edited for length

Session: Understanding and Utilizing Caches on the MPC7457 PowerPC Host Processor, Including Backside L3 and Private Memory
Session ID: H1103
Level: Basic
Presenter: Ted Peters, Applications Engineer, Motorola Networking & Computing Systems Group
Abstract: This session will cover several topics on how to manage the three levels of caches available on the MPC7457 PowerPC Host Processor. The topics will include cache locking, utilizing L3 as private memory, data movement and replacement algorithms between the three cache levels, initializing and testing the caches, and cache-related performance monitor counters. This talk will also help system designers understand the benefits and trade-offs of implementing an L3 backside cache.

Session: Specifying Power Consumption and Heat Sink Requirements for the MPC7447/7457 PowerPC Microprocessor
Session ID: H1106
Level: Intermediate
Presenter: Malcolm Ward, PowerPC Applications Engineer, Motorola Networking & Computing Systems Group
Abstract: This session will evaluate the power consumption on our newest host processors, MPC7447 and MPC7457, when performing the workloads described in the benchmarking session. This evaluation will examine the core and I/O power consumption when using an L2 cache, an L3 cache, a floating point unit and an AltiVec™ unit. We will also look at heat dissipation and how to determine if you need a heat sink for your processor.

Session: Motorola PowerPC Processor Benchmark Update, Including the Latest Performance Data for the New Motorola MPC744/57 PowerPC Host Processors
Session ID: H1112
Presenter: Chuck Corley
Abstract: How does the performance of the MPC7447/7457 compare to competition? To other PowerPC parts? This subject has been very popular at previous Smart Networks Developer Forums. It will include updated EEMBC performance figures for the MPC7447/7457 and other benchmarks as available.

[MrMacMan]

Quite intresting...

If it turns out to be true... this is just very intresting.

Edit: Bus interconnects?!?!?!?
desussion on the processor itself with new features and more L3. cool.

[shadowfax]

what the world needs now, is cubes, great cubes.


i want one!

[Gyroscope]

Hmm.

Just wondering why Apple hasn't put them into new PM. May afterall be that they re moving away from Motorola for their pro line. 970 comes to my mind.

[rice_web]

This could actually be a great stop on the way to the 970. A G4 at 1.5GHz or so (heck, overclocked PowerMacs have already hit 1.5) with the huge cache and full-DDR usage would provide a significant speed boost over the current batch of PowerMacs.

Not that it would necessarily clock this high, but imagine this:

- dual-1.6GHz G4s
- 1MB L2 Cache (in total)
- 8MB L3 Cache (in total)
- 200MHz System Bus (400 effective)
- Hella fast DDR-RAM

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by rice_web
This could actually be a great stop on the way to the 970. A G4 at 1.5GHz or so (heck, overclocked PowerMacs have already hit 1.5) with the huge cache and full-DDR usage would provide a significant speed boost over the current batch of PowerMacs.

Not that it would necessarily clock this high, but imagine this:

- dual-1.6GHz G4s
- 1MB L2 Cache (in total)
- 8MB L3 Cache (in total)
- 200MHz System Bus (400 effective)
- Hella fast DDR-RAM

imagine this:

7,000$ base price (for that model)

[TMay]

My buddy is waiting for one of these, as it "fixes" the current front side bus deficiencies in the PowerMac.

My spin is that the "windtunnels" were designed for the 7557, but alas, these were late. My guess is that the 7557 will be used in a dual processor configuration even after the release of the 970.

As for RapidIO, I'm pretty sure that Steve wants Hypertransport, so, I would be surprised if this variant is picked up by Apple.

This is a good thing, and I would expect to see these this spring. Heck, at the right price point, I might buy one and not wait for the 970.

Nice to see Motorola getting back in the game, even a little bit, as they are a company with a significant heritage, and even an important future in the mac world(note that they have some microprocessor fabrication/material technologies that could scale to 70Ghz and may come on line after 2005).

[neonart]

"The new 70 Ghz G6."

Yup. That would piss off the Wintel dudes!

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by TMay
My buddy is waiting for one of these, as it "fixes" the current front side bus deficiencies in the PowerMac.

My spin is that the "windtunnels" were designed for the 7557, but alas, these were late. My guess is that the 7557 will be used in a dual processor configuration even after the release of the 970.

As for RapidIO, I'm pretty sure that Steve wants Hypertransport, so, I would be surprised if this variant is picked up by Apple.

This is a good thing, and I would expect to see these this spring. Heck, at the right price point, I might buy one and not wait for the 970.

Nice to see Motorola getting back in the game, even a little bit, as they are a company with a significant heritage, and even an important future in the mac world(note that they have some microprocessor fabrication/material technologies that could scale to 70Ghz and may come on line after 2005).


i don't much care what they have in line for 2005, no company should be forgiven for what they have done to apple. sure, it's nice they are upping the G4 a little more, but it really needs to go away or become a LOT cheaper.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by neonart
"The new 70 Ghz G6."

Yup. That would piss off the Wintel dudes!

not if they had 300 GHz P7s ;)

[scem0]

I don't care what happens as long as the 970 comes out soon ;).

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by TMay
My buddy is waiting for one of these, as it "fixes" the current front side bus deficiencies in the PowerMac.



No, it just goes to 200MHz. We've already had a bus speed boost (to 167MHz), what we need is a DDR bus. That said, the 200MHz bus will certainly help things.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man



No, it just goes to 200MHz. We've already had a bus speed boost (to 167MHz), what we need is a DDR bus. That said, the 200MHz bus will certainly help things.

i read it like he meant he wanted a true DDR bus. he didn't say it flat out, but he didn't say "with the same bus architecture only at 200 MHz" either. but thanks for the clarification for the sake of this thread, beacause the bus apple is using is one of the most senseless things i have seen them do.

[Abstract]

So what's going to happen? A 7457 into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, and a G4 into the iBooks until the 970 comes out? And then 7 months down the line, the 970's go into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, while the little iBook then picks up the MPC 7457? Why don't they just NOT use the 7457 at all and move entirely to IBM? If they move to the 7457, it would only be for 1 generation. It doesn't make sense for Apple to push this "next generation" chip when they're only going to use it for several more months. I would rather see the rumoured 2nd generation zippy G3's in the consumer line at 1.5+ Ghz, and the 970 in the PB/PM than anything that Motorola comes out with. It doesn't make sense for Apple to stick with the company that got them into this position to begin with. What is this, Battered-wife syndrome or something? Can't we just leave Motorola once and for all when we have the chance!!!

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Abstract
So what's going to happen? A 7457 into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, and a G4 into the iBooks until the 970 comes out? And then 7 months down the line, the 970's go into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, while the little iBook then picks up the MPC 7457? Why don't they just NOT use the 7457 at all and move entirely to IBM? If they move to the 7457, it would only be for 1 generation. It doesn't make sense for Apple to push this "next generation" chip when they're only going to use it for several more months. I would rather see the rumoured 2nd generation zippy G3's in the consumer line at 1.5+ Ghz, and the 970 in the PB/PM than anything that Motorola comes out with. It doesn't make sense for Apple to stick with the company that got them into this position to begin with. What is this, Battered-wife syndrome or something? Can't we just leave Motorola once and for all when we have the chance!!!

i don't think the 7457 is a next generation processor. isn't it just a G4 that will be able to go to higher clock speeds, liks 1.6 GHz or what have you? there have been several or these numbers. i think the one in my PB is the 7455, but i am too lazy to check. they have a 7454 G4 as well, i am pretty sure. i don't have any concrete info, but rest assured, this is just a G4 that will perform OK at higher clock speeds. i doubt the iBook will be up to G4 till the 970s arrive. but if apple proves me wrong, i'll be happy!

[Gyroscope]

Can't really see the reason why some people here get so upbeat about this 7547's. It's still bloody 3.5 yrs old CPU design (designed for networking equip.) that really wouldn't do any justice to any Apple computer line. Who really cares about additional 256 KB L2 cache and few Mhz increase. What we really need is next generation CPU that kick ass and also justifies price tag Apple is charging for their desktops.:mad:

[Clockwork]

isn't it just a G4 that will be able to go to higher clock speeds

One of the most significant changes is the change to .13 micron. This will allow the processor to run cooler and it will allow the G4 to scale higher at a faster rate.
Ofcourse the 970 will be fabricated at .13 micron, but IBM has already said they will bring it to 90nm or .09 micron.
Just hope they can do it before Intel.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Clockwork


One of the most significant changes is the change to .13 micron. This will allow the processor to run cooler and it will allow the G4 to scale higher at a faster rate.
Ofcourse the 970 will be fabricated at .13 micron, but IBM has already said they will bring it to 90nm or .09 micron.
Just hope they can do it before Intel.

right; it's still a G4 though; it should yield the same performance as older ones if at the same clock speeds, barring some minor boosts from maybe better bindings, and it will run cooler (and thus more reliably). that was my point. they'll now take that and use it to up the MHz...
is the 970 going to be .13 micron when it comes out later this year, or is IBM saying it is going to try to get it to .09 micron BEFORE then, thus making it even cooler (no pun intended)?

[kiwi_the_iwik]

I'm going to wait a while longer before I upgrade my Cube then...

If I do, then faster, cooler processor upgrades will become available - and I won't have to compromise my silent computer for speed (and I may even increase its lifespan...).

:)

[MikeH]

It boils down to this:

Even if this rumor is true we won't see a PowerMac with a 1.8 chip in it for another 6 months. In price to performance terms the Mac towers are falling behind Windows boxs badly.

I've just read a review for £2000 work stations in Digit magazine (March 2003) and a dual 1ghz Mac was soundly thrashed by every Windows machine in the test. Most were twice as fast as the Mac in the Photoshop test - an application where Mac's are supposed to rule.

Considering the amount of cash they are asking for the tower Macs they just are not fast enough. They need better mother boards capable of taking more RAM, running at faster bus speeds and better graphics cards as standard. A geforce 4MX is a £50 consumer card, not a pro level graphics board.

Motorola's slowness in the processer arena needs to addressed - and very soon - or they should be dumped by Apple for a processer manufacturer who takes the situation more seriously, such as AMD.

I don't care what chip the have in them so long as they do the job. And at the moment, they are not.

[Mr. Anderson]

1.8 in even 4 months isn't enough. I think that unless a major, unannounced fundamental upgrade to the Moto chips (which I highly doubt) the only future at this point for Apple is with IBM.

And why is it now, over the past year or so that we've seen more speed bumps in the Moto chips than we saw in the first couple years of the G4? It ridiculous, remember how long it took them to break the GHz barrier?

Bring on the 970

D

[Dont Hurt Me]

I see all this chat i think you have to remember how macs are marketed,pro line and consumer line. Remember the pros use to be the g4 and the consumers the g3. I think in the next year plus you will see apple go with the new 7457 g4 as the consumer line and the new 970 as the pro line. Now the question is how will these be phased in?Only apple and those chip makers know for sure. but i think you wont see the 7457 in the pro line but only in the consumer line after the 970 gets introduced in the powermacs.This is pure speculation but if 970's are being mass produced this 2 qtr or half how long will it take for these to make it into the new powermacs? Remember to that all this duallies stuff was being used to make up for what motorolas was not giving apple. I just dont see them putting in the 7457 and then turn around and use the 970 in the powermac line but who knows?

[Mr. Anderson]

Good point on the consumer and pro lines. I'd have to say that I was talking specifically about the proline.

The other thing aswell will be the PowerBook - that won't have a IBM970 at first either, the 970s will end up in the PowerMacs first and then a couple months later you'll see it in the PowerBooks. At the same time or a little there after the iMacs and iBooks would probably get the G4s.

Idle speculation based on common sense with nothing but rumors to go on, but it makes sense to me and I hope it happens soon enough.

D

[primalman]

July 2003 - IBM will quietly issue a press release saying that PPC 970 chip fabrication is being ramped up to full capacity.

About a week after that, perhaps at MW [maybe?], updated PowerBooks will be announced, with the MPC7457, running up to 1.25-1.33 ghz, with 133 mhz busses.

About a week later, Apple will speed bump the iMac. These will include the MPC7457 at a vartiety of speeds, with 133 and possibly 167 mhz busses.

No material changes to any of the designs of these machines, but some feature bumps [ie FW 800, Airport X accross the lines] will be there.

The iBook will join the G4 family in this later half of the year, but with the older MPC7455 chips running up to say 1.1 ghz. The eMac line will share the same MPC 7455 at up to maybe 1.1 ghz. These both will retain the 133 mhz bus and same form factor/feature set, except for APX.

About a week after that, end of July/early August, after the rumor sites and forums have had multiple anurisms talking about the 7457 and what is means, Apple will announce at a press event, streamed to the web and its own stores, updated wind-tunnel PowerMac G4s, with the 7457, running from 1.42-1.6 ghz. Then when everyone is let down and about to moon the stage..."one more thing." The PowerMac G5/xMac/SuperMac G5/whatever name if it changes is announced with the PPC 970, running at 1.6-2.0 ghz, with a new case design, full DDR, yada, yada, yada.

Everyone is happy and enjoys the rest of the love in.

We will not see PowerBook 970s until at least early 2004, maybe later, after it has gone to the 9nm process.

:)

[DakotaGuy]

This is good news! I think we will see one more G4 PowerMac before the 970 and it will use this chip...also this will help boost the consumer line.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
This is good news! I think we will see one more G4 PowerMac before the 970 and it will use this chip...also this will help boost the consumer line.

All of that about Apple integrating it was speculation, not fact. There are too many variables here we don't really know anything about. There no reason to say we couldn't see a couple G4 updates before the 970.

I just wish it would happen sooner than later and never see a MPC7457 in a PowerMac.

D

[sedarby]

Originally posted by Abstract
So what's going to happen? A 7457 into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, and a G4 into the iBooks until the 970 comes out? And then 7 months down the line, the 970's go into the PM, PB, iMacs and eMacs, while the little iBook then picks up the MPC 7457? Why don't they just NOT use the 7457 at all and move entirely to IBM? If they move to the 7457, it would only be for 1 generation. It doesn't make sense for Apple to push this "next generation" chip when they're only going to use it for several more months. I would rather see the rumoured 2nd generation zippy G3's in the consumer line at 1.5+ Ghz, and the 970 in the PB/PM than anything that Motorola comes out with. It doesn't make sense for Apple to stick with the company that got them into this position to begin with. What is this, Battered-wife syndrome or something? Can't we just leave Motorola once and for all when we have the chance!!!

Imagine this, Apple goes with the 7457. IBM comes out with the 970 with much fanfare. We all wait in anticipation for Apple to announce use of the 970 but instead announces a speed bumped 7457 or newer processor from Motorola. When asked they admit that Motorola is their supplier for processors for the forseeable future.

If Apple goes with the 7457 with all the redesign and retooling that would entail, why would they change processor lines for the 970 one or two updates later? I hope they pass on the 7457 and gear up for the 970, but that is just my preference.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Gyroscope
Can't really see the reason why some people here get so upbeat about this 7547's. It's still bloody 3.5 yrs old CPU design (designed for networking equip.) that really wouldn't do any justice to any Apple computer line. Who really cares about additional 256 KB L2 cache and few Mhz increase. What we really need is next generation CPU that kick ass and also justifies price tag Apple is charging for their desktops.:mad:

Well, I think you're being a LITTLE negative... the G4 isn't a terrible CPU, it's just been neglected. We all see promise in the 970 but I don't think they're charging too much for their desktops. Their prices are very much on par with the industry, given their specs.

[abdul]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Good point on the consumer and pro lines. I'd have to say that I was talking specifically about the proline.

The other thing aswell will be the PowerBook - that won't have a IBM970 at first either, the 970s will end up in the PowerMacs first and then a couple months later you'll see it in the PowerBooks. At the same time or a little there after the iMacs and iBooks would probably get the G4s.

Idle speculation based on common sense with nothing but rumors to go on, but it makes sense to me and I hope it happens soon enough.

D

I dont know much about this, apart from what i read here and there. but im sure u guys were slating the G4 a couple of weeks ago saying that even a revamped version of the G3 would be better and alot cheaper, lets hope Apple goes for the revamped G3 and the G4 doesnt reach the comsumer line at all, am i right?

[Tim Flynn]

First, the pdf from Motorola is relatively old. The document is about the 8245. the 8245 has been out for quite awhile (> 1year).
Someone recently said that the 7457 was in the new PMacs. Looking at the pdf, the 7457 appears to be simply a die shrink and switch to SOI. No "new" technology. I have a dual 867 PMac (loud fan) and I can use the hot air coming out of it to warm my hands. I think I've heard that the new PMac are quieter and less heat. This would imply that 7457 are in the new PMacs (7457s not 7457-RM).
The question is ... why not say they are ?:confused:
or perhaps they are something a little different, like just a die shrink to 0.13 and not SOI. So then it would just be a 7455+. Intel does this, the PIII was still a PIII all through it's die shrinks.

[rice_web]

Well guys, these new chips will not be pathetic, and will make for great iMac / eMac processors over the next year or so. It's great to have news like this, because it means that progress is being made.

Oh, and here's a quick comparison of the 7457 and the 970 from my not-so-certain memory and a pile of rumors:

Moto 7457
- up to 1.83GHz
- 167 & 200MHz System Bus
- 512K L2 Cache
- 4MB L3 Cache

IBM 970
- starting at 1.8GHz
- 900MHz System Bus
- 512K L2 Cache

Now, if we took a 1.8GHz 7457 and a 1.8GHz IBM 970, how much would the 970 win by? Granted, the new 970 is 64-bit and will allow insane amounts of memory (thank God), but how much would it win by with an equal amount of RAM? I'm just curious, because I'm betting the 7457 will be cheaper.

[Tim Flynn]

I don't think Macs are more expensive than PCs. I think they are cheaper. On a personal level they appear more expensive, but on a corporate level they appear more economical. I work at a company that is mostly Macs (except for me, I have all the PCs). I have read and heard stories that Macs need little maintenance ( like an IT department). It is documented that only 20% of the cost of a computer is what you paid at the store for it. Since the market is essentially Wintel, that means a $2000 pc actually costs $10,000 including support (on average). A Mac cost more but with less support requirement, it can if fact be cheaper overall.

[MikeH]

Their prices are very much on par with the industry, given their specs.

I have in front of me a copy of the UK design magazine Digit (march 03) which has a test of workstations for around the £2000 mark.

Apple supplied a dual 1ghz PowerMac (£1700), other manufacturers included Dell, IBM, Fujitsu-Siemens and a couple of smaller UK based companies.

Apple £1700
Dual 1ghz CPU
256mb RAM
ATI 9000 graphics
DVD-R
80gb HD

Dell £2075
P4 2.8ghz
1gb RAM
nVidia Quadro4 900 XGL graphics
DVD+R
Two 36gb 15,000 rpm Ultra SCSI HD

IBM £1600
P4 2.6 CPU
512mb RAM
Matrox G450 graphics
CD-RW
36gb SCSI

The test involved a Photoshop action test on 75mb file and a Lightwave render with a Newtek supplied demo file.

Results:
Apple: Photoshop 163 secs. Lightwave 69mins 32 secs
Dell: Photoshop 75 secs. Lightwave 29mins 38 secs
IBM: Photoshop 128 secs. Lightwave 30mins 46 secs

The other PC's gave similar or better performance. End result: The Mac's was blitzed in every test. I don't see the updated Mac's fairing much better. The G4 has a lot of catching up to do, either that or it should get a lot cheaper.

[primalman]

Originally posted by MikeH
Apple £1700
Dual 1ghz CPU
256mb RAM

Dell £2075
P4 2.8ghz
1gb RAM

IBM £1600
P4 2.6 CPU
512mb RAM

Results:
Apple: Photoshop 163 secs. Lightwave 69mins 32 secs
Dell: Photoshop 75 secs. Lightwave 29mins 38 secs
IBM: Photoshop 128 secs. Lightwave 30mins 46 secs

The other PC's gave similar or better performance. End result: The Mac's was blitzed in every test. I don't see the updated Mac's fairing much better. The G4 has a lot of catching up to do, either that or it should get a lot cheaper.

$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

You think a testing article would provide equal physical footing. This is like have a sprint race with an Olympic runner and a chess champion - biased.

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by Gyroscope
Can't really see the reason why some people here get so upbeat about this 7547's. It's still bloody 3.5 yrs old CPU design (designed for networking equip.) that really wouldn't do any justice to any Apple computer line. Who really cares about additional 256 KB L2 cache and few Mhz increase. What we really need is next generation CPU that kick ass and also justifies price tag Apple is charging for their desktops.:mad:

Actually, Intel's Pentium 3 (which they are still making and using frequently, I might add) is just a tripple overhault of the oldskool Pentium Pro. The PPro came out in 1995/1996:

ftp://download.intel.com/design/pro/manuals/24269001.pdf (Pentium Pro Tech Sheet)

That's 9 years on the backs of the P6 core. I think that people are just miffed because Intel has a next gen proc out right now that is doing well. If you think about it like this... at least Apple didn't dwell on the G3 as Intel did on the P6... the G3 was around for only a couple of years before we got the G4. The G4 came in 1999:

http://www.macspeedzone.com/html/hubs/central/processor_type/G4news.html (G4 announcement)

We're sitting on a 4 year old processor... that's it... I think the g4 has still got lots of live and revs left in it.

Wouldn't almost be a no-brainer that Apple will keep the iBook and iMac at the G4 level and move the pro machines on to "g5s" (970 or otherwise) ASAP?

Also... people shouldn't get their hopes up for the 7457 and the 970 immediately solving their speed woes... Look to Intel again for examples of why this is a bad idea... :

The Pentium Pro wasn't really a consumer product, so we'll not talk about it, but the Pentium II (the second rev of the PPro) was.

So the P2 scaled from 200MHz to 450MHz and that's where it topped out.

Enter the P3. The P3 scaled from 450MHz up to 1GHz (in its original form). At this time, I remember the reviews trashing the P3 because a P3-450 performed NO BETTER than a P2-450.

Enter the P3b (a die shrink). This P3 scales up to 1.4GHz and is currently pitched in low end servers and notebooks almost exclusively.

Enter the P4. Beginning at 1.6GHz and scaling up to 2.4GHz (in this rev), the P4 running at 1.6GHz was shown to be *slower* at many mundane tasks than a fast P3. But the real advantage of the P4 was headroom for clock.

Now they're at 3.06GHz and clicking along nicely. And MacFans are pining away for a messiah processor.

I wouldn't expect that a 7457 is it. Nor the 970. We'll need to wait for die-shrinks and revs on *both* of these for them to rev up mac performance.

Being a bi-platform person (macs are for work, pcs are for games ;) ) myself, I sincerely believe that Apple will ultimately come to speed parity and may eventually surpass the competition in processing power. But I don't think 2003 is the year.

Dharvabinky

[MikeH]

$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

In all fairness, the suppliers were asked to supply a workstation class computer which would retail for £2000. Credit would be given if they had supplied a particularly good value machine for less than that.

So Apple could have added the extra memory themselves and not been penalised. However I don't think it would have doubled the render speed or knocked 60 seconds off the Photoshop test even if they had of done. Incedently the Dell and the IBM were not fastest of the PC's, the Amari scored 66s for P'shop and 25m47s for LW, but as they are a much smaller company they don't really compete directly with Apple's overheads, but it does show what's available for £2000.

Don't get me wrong, I like the PowerMacs but in the last year or so they are falling behind in performance terms with PC's, when they should really be up there straight out the box.

OS X and Apple software is good value leads the way. For the money, so should it's pro level hardware.

[Kid Red]

Fine, the 7457 may be coming out soon, but that doesn't mean it's for the towers. The pBook and iMac still need good fast chips like the G4s until the 970 can be fitted to thier specs.

[pgwalsh]

I'd go for something like this:
Dragon Full-Tower Case (431-Watt PS) (Space Black)
Enermax EG465P-VE 431 Watt Power Supply
Dual AMD Athlon MP Processor 1800+
Tyan S2466N - AMD 760MPX Dual-Processor Motherboard DDR
1GB DDR SDRAM PC-2100 w/ECC
80GB Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 7200RPM 2MB Cache
80GB Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 7200RPM 2MB Cache
16/48x DVD-ROM - IDE - Black w/Software MPEG-2 Decoder
Lite-On 48x24x48x CD-RW - IDE - Black
NVIDIA® Quadro?4 900 XGL w/128MB 4X AGP Dual Monitor
Sound Blaster® Audigy 1394 - 5.1
Microsoft Internet Keyboard (Space Black)
Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0 - USB (Standard Color)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Free Alienware® T-Shirt - Black
Bonus 12-Month Subscription to Computer Games Magazine!
Alien Autopsy: Automated Technical Support Request System
Aliencare Toll-Free 1-Year 24/7 ONSITE Warranty
Personalized Owner's Manual
Optimized & Configured for High-Performance
FREE Custom Alienware® Mouse Pad

Price: $2679.00
From AlienWare

The only thing I'd want different is OS X and pro keyboard/mouse, ATI 9700 Pro, and T-Shirt. Apple should max out there pro DV systems like this. It would make it much more appealing.

[MikeH]

The only thing I'd want different is OS X and pro keyboard/mouse, ATI 9700 Pro, and T-Shirt. Apple should max out there pro DV systems like this. It would make it much more appealing.


I couldn't agree more.

[primalman]

Originally posted by MikeH


In all fairness, the suppliers were asked to supply a workstation class computer which would retail for £2000. Credit would be given if they had supplied a particularly good value machine for less than that.

So Apple could have added the extra memory themselves and not been penalised. However I don't think it would have doubled the render speed or knocked 60 seconds off the Photoshop test even if they had of done. Incedently the Dell and the IBM were not fastest of the PC's, the Amari scored 66s for P'shop and 25m47s for LW, but as they are a much smaller company they don't really compete directly with Apple's overheads, but it does show what's available for £2000.

Don't get me wrong, I like the PowerMacs but in the last year or so they are falling behind in performance terms with PC's, when they should really be up there straight out the box.

OS X and Apple software is good value leads the way. For the money, so should it's pro level hardware.

I see your points onthe money and why they did it that way, and nice comments about the OS and such.

I have to say though, that on my 667 G4, when I went from 512mb ram to 1.5 gb ram, my Photoshop times improved by over 50%, no kidding, outside of overall times for open and save. Gaussian blur times were the most increased. LW, I don't know for sure, not my area, but the RAM requirements on 3D I know are high.

BTW, was the PM running OSX.1.x or X.2.x?? That will have a difference too, as sooooooo much of the screen overhead is dumped to the graphics card with Quartz Extreme in X.2.x. That will have an impact as well on the CPU time available, even while the UI is somewhat idle, ie no user input. Just a thought.

I also agree that the PM speed is an issue, BUT, the overall enchilada of the OS and hardware speak to total effienciency as well. On OSX, I spend roughly 10% of the time I spent on OS9 [or 2% of the time my unfortunate colleagues on XP do] doing upkeep and troubleshooting, so my overall time spent on work is greatly improved.

And this may sound like an excuse, but I am a professional freelance graphic designer, I get paid by the hour, roughly $50-75/hr depending on the job. So if a Photoshop session takes me 2 hours on my G4, instead of 1 hour on a PC, I am making more money. For that, I don't want to get too much faster! HA!

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by primalman
And this may sound like an excuse, but I am a professional freelance graphic designer, I get paid by the hour, roughly $50-75/hr depending on the job. So if a Photoshop session takes me 2 hours on my G4, instead of 1 hour on a PC, I am making more money. For that, I don't want to get too much faster! HA!
Good excuse. Thank god no one will force you to upgrade. :D

[Xerov]

Originally posted by DharvaBinky


Enter the P4. Beginning at 1.6GHz and scaling up to 2.4GHz (in this rev), the P4 running at 1.6GHz was shown to be *slower* at many mundane tasks than a fast P3. But the real advantage of the P4 was headroom for clock.

Dharvabinky



...My friend has a P4 1.4ghz so...the P4's started lower than 1.6ghz

[ktlx]

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
Enter the P4. Beginning at 1.6GHz and scaling up to 2.4GHz (in this rev), the P4 running at 1.6GHz was shown to be *slower* at many mundane tasks than a fast P3. But the real advantage of the P4 was headroom for clock.

Now they're at 3.06GHz and clicking along nicely. And MacFans are pining away for a messiah processor.

I wouldn't expect that a 7457 is it. Nor the 970. We'll need to wait for die-shrinks and revs on *both* of these for them to rev up mac performance.

Being a bi-platform person (macs are for work, pcs are for games ;) ) myself, I sincerely believe that Apple will ultimately come to speed parity and may eventually surpass the competition in processing power. But I don't think 2003 is the year.

I think you are right that neither the 7457 nor the 970 as currently described will bring speed parity.

I do not believe that Apple can surpass the top end Windows platforms for raw horsepower in a desktop ever again. The reason is that the desktop market share for the PowerPC platform is simply too small to allow the kind of R&D that Intel and AMD pour into CPU design and process improvements.

Motorola's focus will not be on desktops because I believe they rightly understand they cannot compete. They will focus on where they can compete which is in the embedded and telecom markets. On process alone Motorola seems stuck at one to two years behind Intel and AMD.

IBM's focus will not be on desktops because I believe they rightly understand they cannot make enough money to justify the costs. They will continue to improve their PowerPC lines for workstations not to compete with the WinTel world, but with HP and Sun. Although most of the hype for the 970 has been around Apple's use, the 970 will be a great processor for next generation networking devices. A 64-bit processor will be very desirable in IPv6 network devices even though it does not offer a lot of advantages in an IPv4 network device.

I think instead of focusing on trying to have the hottest CPU in the desktop world, Apple should instead focus on having the highest value desktops for creative professionals and consumers who are not tied to the WinTel world. I think Apple is still very close to having this even though the current G4s are wholly outclassed by the top of the line Pentium 4s. Given the 7547s or 970s and similar pricing to what they have now, the systems would represent a great value.

If Apple tries to compete head to head on a raw horsepower basis they will loose because Intel has the resources to simply outspend Motorola and IBM on chip R&D.

[Xerov]

x86 is dead....PPC or even something else is the future

[Fukui]

apple £1700
Dual 1ghz CPU
256mb RAM

Dell £2075
P4 2.8ghz
1gb RAM

IBM £1600
P4 2.6 CPU
512mb RAM

Results:
Apple: Photoshop 163 secs. Lightwave 69mins 32 secs
Dell: Photoshop 75 secs. Lightwave 29mins 38 secs
IBM: Photoshop 128 secs. Lightwave 30mins 46 secs

The other PC's gave similar or better performance. End result: The Mac's was blitzed in every test. I don't see the updated Mac's fairing much better. The G4 has a lot of catching up to do, either that or it should get a lot cheaper.
$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

You think a testing article would provide equal physical footing. This is like have a sprint race with an Olympic runner and a chess champion - biased.


If you look at the benchmarks, the IBM P4 speed was almost the same as the dell, but it was still 50 sec almost 50% slower than than the dell, note that the dell had 1GB Ram and the IBM had half (512) hmm.

And I don't beleive the excuse of "they wanted to pick workstations that were matched on similar price"...thats why the DELL was £375 more than the Powermac??? Give me a break. If the IBM was £100 more expensive with 1GB, and the PM was bumped to 1GB also, you would see MUCH more even scores. I mean, haven't they ever heard of custom ordering? That way they could bring the price of the systems as EQUAL as possible, then check thier performance.

The DELL looks faster because it is MORE expensive....

[DharvaBinky]

Originally posted by ktlx

IBM's focus will not be on desktops because I believe they rightly understand they cannot make enough money to justify the costs. They will continue to improve their PowerPC lines for workstations not to compete with the WinTel world, but with HP and Sun. Although most of the hype for the 970 has been around Apple's use, the 970 will be a great processor for next generation networking devices. A 64-bit processor will be very desirable in IPv6 network devices even though it does not offer a lot of advantages in an IPv4 network device.

If Apple tries to compete head to head on a raw horsepower basis they will loose because Intel has the resources to simply outspend Motorola and IBM on chip R&D.

quite true, but I see IBM having *other* BIG BIG plans for the 970 as well. The Power4 is a power/heat machine. Totally unsuitable for Blades. I'm betting that IBM has Linux blades in mind for their 970 research dollars. They're *very* low power, fall in line with the rest of IBM's pSeries (can run Linux and VM and AIX). So I think that the fact that the 970 is likely to be within cost/performance reach of Apple is just an added bonus for *IBM*. Just another customer instead of selling only to themselves and Nortel (Nortel is a big PPC user).

Although... we just returned a nortel Alteon 180e switch (which had a g3 *per port* on a 12 port layer 7 switch) because it was a hunk of junk... *grin* But that's a /. kinda topic. ;)

Anyway, I think that IBM has blade shapped stars in their eyes when they look at the 970 and the fact that Apple can probably use it is just Lagniappe.

Dharvabinky

oh, btw, Lagniappe is a local word, sorry... it's cajun french and it means "A little something extra". (pronounced Laan-yop)

here endeth the local cajun lesson. ;)

[Sun Baked]

There is life left in the G4 for Mac users, if the 64-bit address version appears.

Even if the 7457-RM comes to market and is highly competetive alternative to the 970, without 64-bit address lines -- even the glowing speed the 7457-RM would show the world in a Mac will pale in comparison to a 2-4GB memory limit this Christmas.

[MikeH]

primalman, I'd have to say I agree with you on almost all the points - particularly regarding having to work with the relevant operating systems. As for the RAM issue, unfortunately I don't have enough cash to upgrade to a new DP PowerMac and I don't think Digit will re-run the tests just for me, but I do still think improvements are needed within the PowerMac range - and I don't just mean in processor speed. More attention needs to be paid to the MoBo's, graphics card and IDE interface. The PowerMac's are good, I'm just saying that they should be great.

By the way, I've got an old PowerMac 7500 lieing around somewhere, I'm sure I could do you a deal on that - just think how money you could make then ;)

Regarding Fukui comments, the computer suppliers were 'invited' by Digit to supply machines for testing as close to the £2000 mark as possible. Digit then tested what was sent. As for the examples I quoted, only the Dell came close. Apple UK shot itself in the foot sending a £1700 Mac to a £2000 party, when as suggested by primalman, they could have evened the field a bit by adding extra RAM.

[Fukui]

Regarding Fukui comments, the computer suppliers were 'invited' by Digit to supply machines for testing as close to the £2000 mark as possible. Digit then tested what was sent. As for the examples I quoted, only the Dell came close. Apple UK shot itself in the foot sending a £1700 Mac to a £2000 party, when as suggested by primalman, they could have evened the field a bit by adding extra RAM.

That was pretty stupid of apple.

[primalman]

Originally posted by MikeH
By the way, I've got an old PowerMac 7500 lieing around somewhere, I'm sure I could do you a deal on that - just think how money you could make then ;)

LOL! Just to let you in a secret, I use a PowerCenter Pro 180 604e for my at home freelance stuff. :D At my day job I am lucky enough to have a 667 G4.

That PCP180 has done me good for the last 5 years, but I tell you, I have put about every upgrade I can into it short of processor and 100BT. Its got USB, FW, ATA/133 card, upgraded ATI card, etc. I just do not want to sink more money into it, it's a pit in the long run, cause I can only fit in G3 cards, no G4s allowed.

[Chomolungma]

Originally posted by Shadowfax


not if they had 300 GHz P7s ;)

I rather have a million bit processor running at a sedate 100 Mhz:D

[cubist]

Originally posted by sedarby
Imagine this, Apple goes with the 7457. IBM comes out with the 970 with much fanfare. We all wait in anticipation for Apple to announce use of the 970 but instead announces a speed bumped 7457 or newer processor from Motorola. When asked they admit that Motorola is their supplier for processors for the forseeable future.

If Apple goes with the 7457 with all the redesign and retooling that would entail, why would they change processor lines for the 970 one or two updates later? I hope they pass on the 7457 and gear up for the 970, but that is just my preference.

OK, this post puts it in a nutshell. The 7457 is PIN-COMPATIBLE with the 7455. NO REDESIGN OR RETOOLING IS NEEDED. Once Apple transitions to the 7457 - and why wouldn't they? - there will be no more 7455's used. They won't put older, hotter, more expensive chips in the low-end machines.

Secondly, Apple can switch to the 7457 at almost no cost whatsoever, so they are still free to think about the 970... but as sedarby points out, don't be too shocked if Apple doesn't use the 970.

[Dont Hurt Me]

cubist i can give you only 2 reasons, motorolas history of screwing apple and the lack of a decent frontside bus.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by cubist


OK, this post puts it in a nutshell. The 7457 is PIN-COMPATIBLE with the 7455. NO REDESIGN OR RETOOLING IS NEEDED. Once Apple transitions to the 7457 - and why wouldn't they? - there will be no more 7455's used. They won't put older, hotter, more expensive chips in the low-end machines.

Secondly, Apple can switch to the 7457 at almost no cost whatsoever, so they are still free to think about the 970... but as sedarby points out, don't be too shocked if Apple doesn't use the 970.

If apple doesn't use the 970 (which they will use, for lack of a better chip) I will go to apple and start poking random people with sticks.

Saying 'Why you so stupid! Use IBM 970' I will keep poking intill somone listens. :D

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Chomolungma


I rather have a million bit processor running at a sedate 100 Mhz:D

Hahahahahaha.... You're aware that a million bit 100MHz processor would be SLOWER than a 32 bit 100MHz processor? I'll take a 128 core 8 way superscalar 100MHz processor (maybe, if people start multithreading), but not the one you suggested (think "slower than a Pentium 1").

[hasapi]

In my opinion - to echo some comments already posted, the updated G4 will still be required for Apple's consumer range (and for a period of time almost certainly the powerbook). So this processor is great news. The 970 will be required, if Apple wishes to continue to sell PowerMacs to creative professionals. Look at their SEC filings (http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=aapl&script=11906&layout=7&item_id='index.htm'), they have lost 59% of their PowerMac business since 2000!. Ok the IT industry has also dropped, but the reality is that Intel has been able to sqeeze 3GHz out of the P4 which can now run the Apps (Adobe/Quark/Macromedia) faster and cheaper - consumers are not stupid, even the video market is fast migrating to Linux from Avid (not to Apple).

No the 970 is imperative not only for the PowerMac but also for the xServer family. With 64bit OS X Server this would be a killer product for Apple in its core markets, and no one better than Jobs knows this. Thankfully Apple's existing creative customers have not yet abandoned the platform yet, but the clock is ticking.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
quite true, but I see IBM having *other* BIG BIG plans for the 970 as well. The Power4 is a power/heat machine. Totally unsuitable for Blades. I'm betting that IBM has Linux blades in mind for their 970 research dollars. They're *very* low power, fall in line with the rest of IBM's pSeries (can run Linux and VM and AIX). So I think that the fact that the 970 is likely to be within cost/performance reach of Apple is just an added bonus for *IBM*.

Doh. I forgot about blades (which I should not have since I said that a while ago).

Just another customer instead of selling only to themselves and Nortel (Nortel is a big PPC user).

I think all of the telecom manufacturers are big PowerPC users. It really is the best processor out there for NEBS environments. The AMD and Intel furnaces are just too hot and the MIPS seems to have run out of gas. I think it also has to do with the good relationship they had with Motorola and its 68K line.

[Kethoticus]

I am sick to death of all the wonderful G4 upgrades for... G4s. I am sick of all the G3 upgrades for PowerMac 7500s with PCI slots (are there G4 upgrades for them, too?). The two remaining players in the Mac upgrade market are slipping over the Yikes! Macs with great ease. And I'm totally sick of it.

[Anecdoter]

If, as rumored, the 7457 is in production or close to production, why didn't Apple wait a month and use them in the "new" Power Macs. Why after six months did we get such a timid upgrade instead?
While the 7457 is not a powerful as the IBM 970, it is available or close to it, now - unlike the 970 which we probably won't see in unit that is actually shipping until 2004. According to last quarter's sales, the Power Mac needs something now.
The bigger cache and faster system bus would definitely deliver a perfomance increase that would be quite noticable both on benchmarks and daily user experience. Keep in mind both Intel and AMD have had 512kb L2 cache for quite some time. However, most x86 boxes don't have 4mb of L3 cache per processor (the Xeon systems are an exception) - if Apple could do that at these price points, that would really turn some heads.
Since these chips line up pin for pin, there would have to be only a minor revision to the current motherboards - mainly tweaks to take advantage of the faster system bus. Therefore, Apple wouldn't have to spend gobs of R&D on a board that will be replaced when the 970 appears.
So then, the question remains why didn't Apple choose this processor?

[pgwalsh]

Maybe Apple will break there own trend (6 month product cycle) and do a pm revision with the 7457. Get the full bus support and add the extra's as mentioned earlier. That would be nice and unexpected.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Maybe Apple will break there own trend (6 month product cycle) and do a pm revision with the 7457. Get the full bus support and add the extra's as mentioned earlier. That would be nice and unexpected.

Nah, they can stick to the 6 month schedule and give us the 7457 this summer (note the 6 week shipping time on the 1.43GHz PM, they're having a hard enough time getting fast 7455s).

[Rustus Maximus]

The 970 will be in new PowerMacs by July...;)

[sedarby]

Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
The 970 will be in new PowerMacs by July...;)

Don't you just love a dreamer. Nope, August/September at the earliest since 3rd quarter is when the chip will be available in quantity according to IBM (you know, the ones MAKING the chip).

[Dont Hurt Me]

7457? whats that, anyways i just saw 7455's 1.2 ghz for $609 at owc. at this rate maybe ill just upgrade my powermac and forget all this rumors of 7457 and 970 for a while! Bring on DOOM3!:eek:

[Rustus Maximus]

We dreamers make the world go round...besides this same IBM, you know, the ones MAKING the chip, could be giving misleading info...

but again, it's just a dream I have...:D

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by primalman
The iBook will join the G4 family in this later half of the year, but with the older MPC7455 chips running up to say 1.1 ghz. The eMac line will share the same MPC 7455 at up to maybe 1.1 ghz. These both will retain the 133 mhz bus and same form factor/feature set, except for APX.
The rest of your predictions makes sense, but I don't think you will see the 7455 in the iBook. If (that's a big IF) the iBook gets the G4 anytime, it would make more sense to have it with 7457. Why? Because of heat dissipation. They could afford a 7457 on a 133MHz bus and a lower multiplier (giving you, I don't know, something like 867MHz or 1 GHz) running quite cool, while the other machines (apart from the PowerMacs, them on 970s) are pushing the buses and multipliers to scale the 7457 from 1.25 to 1.66 or 1.8GHz or something... Does that make any sense?

Anyway, this is all wishful thinking, and I also believe that this building up of expectations concerning the 970 is not good. People are expecting way too much of this processor. Que sera sera...

NicoMan

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by sedarby
If Apple goes with the 7457 with all the redesign and retooling that would entail, why would they change processor lines for the 970 one or two updates later? I hope they pass on the 7457 and gear up for the 970, but that is just my preference.
Who says a major redesign is needed. The 7457 is still from the same family as the 7455, and the changes on the mobo might be minimal. Apple could release just as speedbumped G4 and thats that. It would certainly help the iMac and PowerBooks designs, where heat dissipation is an important issue (imagine if you reduce the power consumption of the processor in a iMac, you could very well use other hungrier components, like a more powerful graphics card for example). All I am saying is that by speedbumping (a little, as usual) the iMac and PowerBook designs, they could also get a more energy efficient processor through the 7457, which would give the Apple engineeers a wider range of options for other subsystems.
And in that case, choice is good. To me that is the main interest of that 7457.

NicoMan

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by MikeH


In all fairness, the suppliers were asked to supply a workstation class computer which would retail for £2000. Credit would be given if they had supplied a particularly good value machine for less than that.

So Apple could have added the extra memory themselves and not been penalised. However I don't think it would have doubled the render speed or knocked 60 seconds off the Photoshop test even if they had of done. Incedently the Dell and the IBM were not fastest of the PC's, the Amari scored 66s for P'shop and 25m47s for LW, but as they are a much smaller company they don't really compete directly with Apple's overheads, but it does show what's available for £2000.

Don't get me wrong, I like the PowerMacs but in the last year or so they are falling behind in performance terms with PC's, when they should really be up there straight out the box.

OS X and Apple software is good value leads the way. For the money, so should it's pro level hardware.

Even if I agree with you that there is no question that the Mac would lose in that test, what interests me a lot is the difference between the Dell and the IBM. I would say the RAM made a massive difference. I am not saying that with 1GB the Mac or the IBM would have been the fastest (maybe the IBM? who knows...) but I don't think the difference between the 3 machine would have been that big.

The thing is, when you run a single app in those tests (like photoshop), you don't really reap the benefits of the 2 processors of the Mac. It's more like '1.5*1GHz G4' vs '2.8 P4' and there is no real battle. Now in a working environment when you are rendering in the background while doing something else (browsing or whatever), I'll bet those results wouldn't be that clear-cut. The OSX-running dual processor mac really shines in that environment. But as far as raw processing power goes, the 2.8GHz P4 is clearly ahead.

That's my opinion anyway...


NicoMan

[pimentoLoaf]

4-Megabyte L3 Cache !!!

:eek:

[hasapi]

Dreamers or not? Apple WILL introduce the 970 PowerMac in July, as long as Apple can fulfill its required backorders BEFORE the end of the quarter (and financial year) September 30. Think Business!

[rice_web]

But, a move to, say, a 1.6GHz G4 running a 200MHz system bus and all the cache goodies would be enough to hold out on a G5 release. Yeah, PowerMac sales would probably pick up with the release of a G5, but profit margins may also go down the crapper. I'm holding to my assumption that the 970 will be significantly more costly than the 7457.

EDIT: In fact, I'll say that we'll see a dual-1.GHz PowerMac in JUNE, a month before MWNY. This would remove the expectation of a PowerMac revision and likely hold sales steady. Then, a possible move to the 970 at September - January would be in place.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by NicoMan

The rest of your predictions makes sense, but I don't think you will see the 7455 in the iBook. If (that's a big IF) the iBook gets the G4 anytime, it would make more sense to have it with 7457. Why? Because of heat dissipation. They could afford a 7457 on a 133MHz bus and a lower multiplier (giving you, I don't know, something like 867MHz or 1 GHz) running quite cool, while the other machines (apart from the PowerMacs, them on 970s) are pushing the buses and multipliers to scale the 7457 from 1.25 to 1.66 or 1.8GHz or something... Does that make any sense?

Anyway, this is all wishful thinking, and I also believe that this building up of expectations concerning the 970 is not good. People are expecting way too much of this processor. Que sera sera...

NicoMan

Actually, I think the iBook will probably get an L-Spec 7447 (the lowest power 74x7 variant). It won't be that quick, but it'll be quicker than the current iBook without be much (if any) hotter.

[Sun Baked]

Apple posted the block diagram of the new Powerbook 12...

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html

I couldn't find any more information on the new iMacs or the Intrepid controller, but the available information is interesting.

A new controller for the iMac and the PB 12, may very well mean sticking with the G4s a bit longer in this class of machine -- definitely longer than this summer.

So they may well see the 7447 or 7457 in the next speed bump.

[Sun Baked]

The block diagram...

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


Actually, I think the iBook will probably get an L-Spec 7447 (the lowest power 74x7 variant). It won't be that quick, but it'll be quicker than the current iBook without be much (if any) hotter.

Is the power consumption the only difference between the 7447 and 7457? If no what else is different? Cache size?

NicoMan

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Apple posted the block diagram of the new Powerbook 12...

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html

I couldn't find any more information on the new iMacs or the Intrepid controller, but the available information is interesting.

A new controller for the iMac and the PB 12, may very well mean sticking with the G4s a bit longer in this class of machine -- definitely longer than this summer.

So they may well see the 7447 or 7457 in the next speed bump.

I think so too. Maybe the 17" PowerBook will see a low frequency version of the 970 when (IF???) it comes out, but the rest will probably stay on G4s for a while...

NicoMan

[yosoyjay]

Originally posted by primalman


$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

You think a testing article would provide equal physical footing. This is like have a sprint race with an Olympic runner and a chess champion - biased.

No way. Even if you down-scaled the memory in a G4, the P4 would still outperform it. The P4 is a far superior chip than the G4. The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing these bs arguments citing the "MHz Myth" when comparing a PC to a Mac. The reality is that even a dual G4 PowerMac is going to be outperformed by a cheaper, more powerful, single processor P4. Deal with it. There is no way Motorola can compete with Intel no matter what arch. footnotes you cite. That is why it is imperitive to move to the 970. Anything less is unaccepatble.

[Maxkraft]

The P4 is at 2.8 ghz only encodes video as 4 time as fast as a p3 at 500 mhz. The p4 is 40% slower per Mhz. This is not a myth, but it does mean apple needs to ship a 2.2 ghz g4.

[law guy]

Originally posted by Anecdoter
Keep in mind both Intel and AMD have had 512kb L2 cache for quite some time. However, most x86 boxes don't have 4mb of L3 cache per processor (the Xeon systems are an exception) - if Apple could do that at these price points, that would really turn some heads.


And the Intel Xeon only have a 512 L2 cache at this point (although the new Xeons are running a 533 MHz sys bus at - just this week catching the P4 - 3.06 MHz). You have to go to the Itanium to get the 1 or 3 mb cache (upgraded to 6mb later this year) but it loses speed through an extra process needed to work with current 32 bit Win code.

It would be great if Apple could move more to a build to order so that as soon as a new chip is out, they could just start without so much inventory to sell down. I do love that about new Intel chips - they are released and often shipping in systems that week. I suppose the cost of Cali assembly (ala a Texas like Dell center) and the retail commitment keeps this from happening?

I've seen a lot of single Intel chip vs. dual G4 benchmarks out on the web. Has anyone seen a dual Xeon (like a Dell Precision) vs. a dual G4? Or a single G4 vs. a single P4 (a notebook benchmark perhaps)?

[Fukui]

The G4 was maybe equivalent to a PIII, if not a PII
:confused: A PII?? Are you kidding? When I switched to a 450 G4 from a 400 PII, I noticed MORE than a 3x performance on everything (both on a 100mhz bus btw). G4 absolutely murders a P2 and competes with a P3 very very well until the clock of the P3 gets much higher. The problem isn't with the 'chip' itself, its with the stupid manufacture...motorola.

[Telomar]

Originally posted by Maxkraft
The P4 is at 2.8 ghz only encodes video as 4 time as fast as a p3 at 500 mhz. The p4 is 40% slower per Mhz. This is not a myth, but it does mean apple needs to ship a 2.2 ghz g4.

Actually that suggests the processor is significantly worse than 40% slower given how much other aspects of the computer have improved since then.

The CPU doesn't make up the computer on its own. People do realise this right?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Telomar


Actually that suggests the processor is significantly worse than 40% slower given how much other aspects of the computer have improved since then.

The CPU doesn't make up the computer on its own. People do realise this right?

sure, but if you look at the rest of the computer, the PC industry beats apple to most new hardware, e.g. the radeon 9700, DDR RAM, all that superfast, mostly consumer hardware.

i couldn't compare x86 and mac hardware at the professional level though.

apple makes better laptops though, speaking strictly from a hardware perspective.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by yosoyjay


No way. Even if you down-scaled the memory in a G4, the P4 would still outperform it. The P4 is a far superior chip than the G4. The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing these bs arguments citing the "MHz Myth" when comparing a PC to a Mac. The reality is that even a dual G4 PowerMac is going to be outperformed by a cheaper, more powerful, single processor P4. Deal with it. There is no way Motorola can compete with Intel no matter what arch. footnotes you cite. That is why it is imperitive to move to the 970. Anything less is unaccepatble.

this is the most illogical thing i have ever read. your argument consists entirely of a series of unprecedented comments that are utterly devoid of everything except inflamed opinion. have you ever used a G4? a contemporary one, mind you?

of course, apple does need to go to the 970, and the G4 has some serious issues, but comparing it to a pentium 3 even is very VERY stupid, not to mention a PII. i have a pentium III 933 MHz computer with the full 512 MB of RAM, an SB Live!, a Geforce 3 ti 200 (64 MB DDR)... it encodes a full CD into mp3 in about 15 minutes, 15 minutes during which i can do NOTHING with my computer except chat on the internet. my G4 1 GHz (notice, that's about the same MHz) burns full CDs in 3-5 minutes, and i can do just about anything i want to while it's encoding. as a matter of fact, i just did during this message. you would never have known it was doing so.

my dad had a P2 350 MHz... i am not even going there. your comparison is a great joke.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by yosoyjay


The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power.

Okay I have seen and heard some dumb stuff in my day, but this takes the cake. I have a 350Mhz PII at school and a 350Mhz G3. The G3 has the PII for LUNCH! The 350Mhz G3 is actually usable. The PII is worthless. Where you come up with the idea that a PII will out run a G4 is beyond all imagination.

[neonart]

P3 and P2 better than g4?

Ok, I have an Atari 2600 and it rips the doors of any PS2...

Right.

People, come on? The G4 may not be god's gift to Computers, but it's a very good processor.
Here is an artivcle from PC mag, not any Mac mag, and it shows the G4 can still hang pretty good.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,810846,00.asp

I do agree the PPC970 is a must since Intel and AMD are not goiong to sit and wait.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by yosoyjay


No way. Even if you down-scaled the memory in a G4, the P4 would still outperform it. The P4 is a far superior chip than the G4. The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing these bs arguments citing the "MHz Myth" when comparing a PC to a Mac. The reality is that even a dual G4 PowerMac is going to be outperformed by a cheaper, more powerful, single processor P4. Deal with it. There is no way Motorola can compete with Intel no matter what arch. footnotes you cite. That is why it is imperitive to move to the 970. Anything less is unaccepatble.

Yeah, people. You have to face it, in non-Vector apps, the G4 will win no benchmark. Period.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by tmarkt:
Not to change the subject but I just found this on Motorola's web site.

MPC7457 fact sheet (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/MPC7457FS.pdf)

- MarkAnd the specs...

[MacKid]

I mean a P4 system with the same stats.

Just added that to lighten the flaming that I shall receive (although I must admit a G4 is faster than a P3 and most definitely a P2:rolleyes: )

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by MacKid


Yeah, people. You have to face it, in non-Vector apps, the G4 will win no benchmark. Period.

right, but shoot, with programs compiled on OS X, windows wont even RUN them. what's your point?

when you port apps to mac, if you don't G4-optimize, you're an ass. don't blame apple/motorola for making a chip with added performance when other apps won't even use it. and with quartz &c, every app experiences some boost.

seriously, i don't much see your point.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
And the specs... thanks again Baked! notice it says scale up to 1.3 not exactly the chip of the future is it.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
thanks again Baked! notice it says scale up to 1.3 not exactly the chip of the future is it.

And yet the 7455 has scaled to 1.43GHz with a less advanced manufacturing process... I think that 1.3GHz is the equivalent of Motorola saying the 7455 will only go to 1067MHz (which they say).

In response to the 7457/47 post, the 47 doesn't have L3 cache, which lowers its pin count. Apparently the 12" Powerbook uses the 7445.

Also, the 1GHz 7455 dissipates 35 watts (typical) while the 7457 dissipates 12 watts. I think the laptops are going to get a lot cooler soon.

However, another (more recentently updated?) thing on the same page says 15 watts typical for a 1GHz 7455. I'm confused.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
thanks again Baked! notice it says scale up to 1.3 not exactly the chip of the future is it.

Remember the 7455 was not supposed to scale past 1Ghz according to the roadmap and it is now at 1.42Ghz. I would not take that Ghz limit on the roadmap to heart.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by Shadowfax


right, but shoot, with programs compiled on OS X, windows wont even RUN them. what's your point?

when you port apps to mac, if you don't G4-optimize, you're an ass. don't blame apple/motorola for making a chip with added performance when other apps won't even use it. and with quartz &c, every app experiences some boost.

seriously, i don't much see your point.

Actually, you kind of missed it. I wasn't trying to complain like the person I quoted, I was just trying to point out to some of the "passionately stubborn" people out there that on some of the cross-platform "real-world" apps, a Pentium 4 just has the raw clock speed to pull ahead. I wasn't trying to say that the G4 has any speed problems. I mean, with the whole freakin' OS being vector optimized it's not by any means slow, I was just trying to point something out to the people that simply refuse to see part of the reason that 95% is making a certain decision.;)

[Telomar]

Originally posted by Shadowfax


sure, but if you look at the rest of the computer, the PC industry beats apple to most new hardware, e.g. the radeon 9700, DDR RAM, all that superfast, mostly consumer hardware.

I'm really not sure how you got onto that tangent I said nothing about time to market of any technology. I was only pointing out the flaw in his calculations. People seem to fail to understand judging system performance is considerably more tricky than a number.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MacKid
...I mean, with the whole freakin' OS being vector optimized it's not by any means slow...
I'm no SIMD expert, but I think your're fooling yourself if you believe that "the whole OS is vector optimized."

Only certain things can be optimized for SIMD processing and I'd be surprised if much of the Darwin core has any AltiVec calls.

Quartz probably makes use of it for some of the eye candy - I'd venture a guess that a lot of the alpha-chanel stuff and the genie effect and things like that use AltiVec a lot. (I know dropping a G4/400 into my B&W G3/400 sped up Aqua a bit for me - and was like putting NOS in FCP!!)

Unfortunatelly, even with AltiVec doing the heavy lifting in applications like QuickTime, FCP, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD I still beleive it is ham-strung by the slow memory access speed. <soapbox>We need REAL DDR, like yesterday Steve! </soapbox>

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

I'm no SIMD expert, but I think your're fooling yourself if you believe that "the whole OS is vector optimized."

Only certain things can be optimized for SIMD processing and I'd be surprised if much of the Darwin core has any AltiVec calls.

Quartz probably makes use of it for some of the eye candy - I'd venture a guess that a lot of the alpha-chanel stuff and the genie effect and things like that use AltiVec a lot. (I know dropping a G4/400 into my B&W G3/400 sped up Aqua a bit for me - and was like putting NOS in FCP!!)

Unfortunatelly, even with AltiVec doing the heavy lifting in applications like QuickTime, FCP, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD I still beleive it is ham-strung by the slow memory access speed. <soapbox>We need REAL DDR, like yesterday Steve! </soapbox>

All true. Assuming 1 vector floating point multiply-add per cycle (for example), that's (if I understand it correctly) 96 bits of data per cycle (3 source, 1 destination). On a 1GHz G4+ that's 96,000,000,000 bits per second, or 12GB/sec (There's gotta be something wrong with my math, that seems too high). A 167MHz bus can theoretically get 1.3GB/sec.

<edit>

Well, I was wrong. It's worse than I thought. On a 400MHz G4 (not G4+) using Altivec to add two streams of numbers together can eat up 12.8GB/sec. Using multiply-adds and writing the results back to memory can quadruple that (it turns out that multiply adds don't work like a = b * c + d, they work like abcd = efgh * ijkl + mnop, all in one cycle).

</edit>

<edit2>
This means that certain operations could go over 100 times faster if we had a fast enough bus (100GB+/sec).
</edit2>

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Telomar


I'm really not sure how you got onto that tangent I said nothing about time to market of any technology. I was only pointing out the flaw in his calculations. People seem to fail to understand judging system performance is considerably more tricky than a number.

you were talking about how the "whole" computer had to be addressed, as opposed to simply the processor. i was agreeing with that, and considering it. i realize that you were pointing out a flaw in the argument, and i am pointing out the potential problem in yours. components, such as video and sound cards, make up a significant base of the "whole" computer. you can have a pretty crappy processor and still run some awesome games and intensive video apps if you have a nice enough video card. it speeds your system. and the PC world gets the fastest ones first; case in point, the 9700 radeon. i fail to see how you fail to see the relevancy of my comment.

[Telomar]

Originally posted by Shadowfax


i fail to see how you fail to see the relevancy of my comment. I'd say the reason I find it confusing is I never made comparisons between Apple and PC products.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by Telomar
I'd say the reason I find it confusing is I never made comparisons between Apple and PC products.

:D How are you supposed to get all your friends to switch then???;)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Telomar
I'd say the reason I find it confusing is I never made comparisons between Apple and PC products.

let's hav a look at what you were responding to:

Originally posted by Maxkraft
The P4 is at 2.8 ghz only encodes video as 4 time as fast as a p3 at 500 mhz. The p4 is 40% slower per Mhz. This is not a myth, but it does mean apple needs to ship a 2.2 ghz g4.

hmm. ok. i can see that technically you aren't making an apple-PC comparison. however, your argument as a response to this post seems to deal with such a comparison.

you said:
Originally posted by Telomar


Actually that suggests the processor is significantly worse than 40% slower given how much other aspects of the computer have improved since then.

The CPU doesn't make up the computer on its own. People do realise this right?

your argument is touching the speed of intel's processors, compared to themselves, of course, but it seems to me that you are saying this to refute his statement that we need a G4 2.2 GHz.

i inferred that you meant that apple has a competitive edge on the "rest of the computer," and responded that i don't think it does. but perhaps i was way off. sorry.