Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 4, 2003, 10:02 AM   #1
Panther 970
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Thumbs up DP PowerBook G5s?

I think that it's possible to put dual processors in some of the PowerBook models that are available using 90nm technology (90nm should keep the system much cooler). I've seen this done in notebook PCs before. This is how I see a future lineup of PowerBook G5s (in 6 months or more, PowerMac G5s should be running at much higher clock speeds than they are now):
  1. 17" -- DP 2.2GHz G5
  2. 15.4" -- DP 2.0GHz G5
  3. 15.4" -- DP 1.8GHz G5
  4. 15.4" -- SP 1.8GHz G5
  5. 12" -- SP 1.8GHz G5

edit: What if by default the second processor was turned off? The user could turn it on in the operating system control panel if they need it for doing highly intensive processing tasks. Even then, the operating system should control the use of the second processor by limiting the use of it; this is just the same way that the OS manges the fans in the PowerMac G5. The OS could manage it in such a way as to keep the heat down and battery life relatively high. That just might work.

Last edited by Panther 970; Jul 6, 2003 at 02:15 PM.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 10:40 AM   #2
Veldek
macrumors 68000
 
Veldek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Send a message via ICQ to Veldek Send a message via AIM to Veldek Send a message via MSN to Veldek
Will this ever stop?

Wow, this lineup is the most improbable I've ever seen. First, G5s are running way too hot to put even one of them in a PowerBook. Second, in no case Apple will put chips that run at higher frequencies as the desktop ones in a PowerBook. Wait some time (at least 6 months), then we might see 1.4Ghz or perhaps 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz G5s in a PowerBook, but yours is ridiculous.

Sorry for being this harsh, but I can't stand this anymore...
Veldek is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 10:41 AM   #3
Billicus
macrumors 6502a
 
Billicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charles City, Iowa
That'll be nice, but it'll be awhile.
__________________
"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp."
- Ronald Reagan February 10, 1982
Billicus is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 10:42 AM   #4
Billicus
macrumors 6502a
 
Billicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Charles City, Iowa
Quote:
Originally posted by Veldek
Will this ever stop?

Wow, this lineup is the most improbable I've ever seen. First, G5s are running way too hot to put even one of them in a PowerBook. Second, in no case Apple will put chips that run at higher frequencies as the desktop ones in a PowerBook. Wait some time (at least 6 months), then we might see 1.4Ghz or perhaps 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz G5s in a PowerBook, but yours is ridiculous.

Sorry for being this harsh, but I can't stand this anymore...
He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...
__________________
"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp."
- Ronald Reagan February 10, 1982
Billicus is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:02 AM   #5
Mr. Anderson
Moderator emeritus
 
Mr. Anderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: VA
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Anderson
Quote:
Originally posted by Billicus
He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...
Have you not noticed the cooling system installed on the current G5s?

I don't think the G5 chips will go into the PowerBook - they might wait to get the 980s in there since they'll be smaller and have less current draw/heat as well.....

D
__________________
"Klaatu varada nikto!"
Mr. Anderson is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:05 AM   #6
Panther 970
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
I didn't mean that this might happen right away folks. But perhaps in 6 months or more. And 90nm chips should keep the system cool enough.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:06 AM   #7
Veldek
macrumors 68000
 
Veldek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Send a message via ICQ to Veldek Send a message via AIM to Veldek Send a message via MSN to Veldek
Quote:
Originally posted by Billicus
He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...
But he didn't say how far this future is away. So if new PowerBooks are announced on the 16th, this would be in the future, too, wouldn't it.

Edit: Ok, you corrected yourself, but even in 6 months THIS won't be the case, never!
Veldek is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:09 AM   #8
Panther 970
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
I have edited the original post to clear up any confusion.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:11 AM   #9
Panther 970
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Veldek
Edit: Ok, you corrected yourself, but even in 6 months THIS won't be the case, never!
Ah, but Apple and IBM wowed us by getting the G5 out early. You never know what they might do next.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:24 AM   #10
Veldek
macrumors 68000
 
Veldek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Send a message via ICQ to Veldek Send a message via AIM to Veldek Send a message via MSN to Veldek
I think Mr. Anderson said it when he pointed out that G5s need way too much cooling to fit in a PowerBook. In 6 months there will perhaps be the first revision of the Power Macs. Assuming that the top model will run at 2.5GHz (to reach 3GHz 6 months later), then the low end model will be SP 2GHz or less. So in no way there will be your lineup becoming reality. And talking about what might be there in one year or more is too far away yet, don't you think. One could even think of QP 4GHz G5s in a Power Mac "in the future".

Why can't we be content with what we got?
Veldek is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:29 AM   #11
Panther 970
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Veldek
Why can't we be content with what we got?
One word: competition.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:34 AM   #12
shadowfax
macrumors 601
 
shadowfax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Send a message via AIM to shadowfax
well, all cooling aside, predicting dual processor laptops is about as asinine as predicting quad processor powermacs. it's not going to happen, panther. they clock a single processors as high as they can without overheating the little boxes, and they run it like that. they don't try to add another one. one 970 at those speeds would be more than enough power for a laptop. 2/3 of their desktop line is slower than 2 GHz. when they finally do put in the 970 on Powerbooks, you will probably find that, like just about every other powerbook, it matches or very slightly surpasses the lowest-end powermac they sell, never anything more.

also, i don't know how soon this .09 µ process is coming. may be a bit farther off than you're hoping.

man, i cant wait for those 10 GHz G10 Quantum processors to get into powerbooks! maybe they'll be dual proc!
shadowfax is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 11:49 AM   #13
macphoria
macrumors 6502a
 
macphoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Dual processor laptop will not happen because of power consumption. Even if they come up with battery that can support two processors for 5 hours, wouldn't you rather have a laptop that lasts 10 hours by having single processor? I know this estimation is not precise, but you know what I'm getting at.
macphoria is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 12:06 PM   #14
Ensoniq
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bronx, NY
I agree that DP PowerMac laptops won't come until there is a compelling reason to do so. I don't think that has happened yet. For most, a single high-speed processor is the best speed/battery power combination available so far.

But regarding what is or isn't possible...this has been discussed before and I will say it again.

Up until the PowerMac G5 announcement two weeks ago:

Low-End PowerMac - 1 GHz G4
High-End PowerBook - 1 GHz G4
High-End iMac - 1 GHz G4
High-End eMac - 1 GHz G4

See something in common? All 3 of the high-end lineups used the low-end PowerMac G4 chip. Apple didn't see this as a problem, so why should we? So it's entirely possible to believe that within 6 months:

Low-End PowerMac - 1.6 GHz G5
High-End PowerBook - 1.6 GHz G5
High-End iMac - 1.6 GHz G5

Ignoring the eMac, which Apple may keep at the G4 level for a while due to cost concerns, the above formula matches Apple's previous G4 formula exactly. Why do so many insist that having a 1.6 GHz G5 in all 3 machines at the same time is impossible? It's EXACTLY what Apple should do, from a business standpoint, unless there is a legitimate TECHNICAL reason why it can't be done.

You can debate the heat/power issues all day long...but no one knows for sure that a single G5 is too hot for anything. Remember...the PowerMac G5 has nine fans and 4 optimized cooling zones TO KEEP IT QUIET, not specifically due to heat issues related ENTIRELY to the processors. The assertion that a move to a 90nm process is needed before there could ever be a PowerBook/iMac G5 is unfounded, and purely speculative. Only Apple and IBM know for sure.
__________________
-- Ensoniq
Ensoniq is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 12:06 PM   #15
Veldek
macrumors 68000
 
Veldek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Send a message via ICQ to Veldek Send a message via AIM to Veldek Send a message via MSN to Veldek
Quote:
Originally posted by Panther 970
One word: competition.
Of course, you have to proceed because of competition, but that doesn't mean that you can do magic. The technology isn't as far as it has to be for such a thing, just look at the above posts.

It's simply far from reality, that's it.
Veldek is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 12:16 PM   #16
Sun Baked
macrumors G5
 
Sun Baked's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Two 2GHz CPUs at 50W is about 100W.

Stick it in a laptop and you'll get enough to do this which also cooks along at about 100W.

Dual 2GHz G5 Laptop should output enough heat to cook your nuts, don't think you'd get a Darwin Award for it though.

Second option costs $20 and also cooks using 100W, but at least it comes with a cookbook.
__________________
If you are the type of person who solves all their problems with a hammer, because it is the only tool in your toolbox. It would be wise of you to never get in an argument with a gunsmith.
Sun Baked is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 12:22 PM   #17
XnavxeMiyyep
macrumors 65816
 
XnavxeMiyyep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Washington
Send a message via AIM to XnavxeMiyyep Send a message via MSN to XnavxeMiyyep Send a message via Yahoo to XnavxeMiyyep
Quote:
Originally posted by Shadowfax
well, all cooling aside, predicting dual processor laptops is about as asinine as predicting quad processor powermacs.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of quad processor macs. It's been done before, even if it was a clone as opposed to a system built by Apple.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/days...p932_plus.html
XnavxeMiyyep is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 01:08 PM   #18
Panther 970
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by macphoria
Dual processor laptop will not happen because of power consumption. Even if they come up with battery that can support two processors for 5 hours, wouldn't you rather have a laptop that lasts 10 hours by having single processor? I know this estimation is not precise, but you know what I'm getting at.
Notebook processors are designed not to suck up as much juice as desktop processors.

Also, in about 2 years, fuel-cell technology will become available for notebooks. In the meantime, 90nm processors should be enough keep battery life high and internal heat low.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 01:14 PM   #19
Panther 970
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Veldek
Of course, you have to proceed because of competition, but that doesn't mean that you can do magic. The technology isn't as far as it has to be for such a thing, just look at the above posts.

It's simply far from reality, that's it.
All I'm saying is that I've seen DP notebooks before from major competitors and if companies like Dell, Gateway, and HP-Compaq can do it with the support of Intel and AMD, then shouldn't Apple do it to with the support of IBM?

The point I'm trying to make is that Apple's high-end PowerMacs and PowerBooks are supposed to be "Pro" machines and some models should sport DP. All iMacs, eMacs, and iBooks should sport single processors only since these are strictly consumer machines. The Xserve should be in a category all by itself, sporting 4 or more processors.
Panther 970 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 01:15 PM   #20
macphoria
macrumors 6502a
 
macphoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Quote:
Notebook processors are designed not to suck up as much juice as desktop processors.

Also, in about 2 years, fuel-cell technology will become available for notebooks. In the meantime, 90nm processors should be enough keep battery life high and internal heat low.
This is true. But again, second processor will still drain power. On top of this, if a user needs that much processing power, Apple would want you to spend money on their Power Macs which is supposed to be the top of the line Mac.
macphoria is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 01:50 PM   #21
shadowfax
macrumors 601
 
shadowfax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Send a message via AIM to shadowfax
Quote:
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
There's nothing wrong with the idea of quad processor macs. It's been done before, even if it was a clone as opposed to a system built by Apple.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/days...p932_plus.html
you say so, boss, but i'm not holding my breath. you can run down to MacOSRumors if you like, they have been predicting quads since probably before steve started apple. and apple has never done it. not in their PowerMacs

also, about technology increases allowing the implementation of dual processors. yeah, i guess so.

you'll get fuel cells giving you all kinds of battery life. 65 nanometer processes that make the die smaller and smaller, and cooler running. what will they do? clock it higher! why would i want 2 65 nm G5s at 3 GHz when i could have one at 6, or even 1 at 5? all those advances also come with a pushing of the envelope in single processor performance, which in turn causes the need for better heating control. and when it comes, they just clock the processor faster.

they aren't going to 65 nm processes so they can make a processor that runs at 3 watts at 2 GHz. and if they do, you won't want 2 of those, because the chip they put in the power macs will be clocked 3 times higher. and there will be two there.

seriously, once again, what they will do is push it to the max on one. it's what they always do.

Last edited by shadowfax; Jul 4, 2003 at 01:59 PM.
shadowfax is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 02:04 PM   #22
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
 
Abstract's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Location Location
Okay, the "Quad" convo is going nowhere. Who cares? It ain't going into a PB.

ON topic, dual 2.0GHz 970's in the PB won't be coming in 6 months. I don't think that will ever be a reality. I can hardly imagine a single 970 going into a PB casing unless it was at 1.2GHz, maybe 1.4GHz. They should do this. For now, this should be their goal --- getting faster G5 PB's to us. If 64-bit is Apple's future, they better get all their computers rolling in the 64-bit direction.
__________________
"Hard? It's supposed to be hard. Hard is what makes it great!" - Tom Hanks.
Abstract is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 02:14 PM   #23
shadowfax
macrumors 601
 
shadowfax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Send a message via AIM to shadowfax
Quote:
Originally posted by Abstract
Okay, the "Quad" convo is going nowhere. Who cares? It ain't going into a PB.
no one said it was, man. i was using it's chances of getting on a desktop apple machine as an analogy to the chances of the Pbook getting dual proc G5s.

as to your goals, i agree with them, but i don't even see those going into powerbooks in the next 6 months. i think they are going to go for that new IBM G3 that will really be a G4, if not the 7457 from moto, for well into 2004. they have gone 64 bit on their überpro line, but there is no call to do this anywhere else. probably all of less than 5% of the people that use the G5s will actually take advantage of the 64-bitness. it's just great for people because it is clocked so much higher than the G4s can, plus is has all kinds of insanely high bandwidth. so, no, i don't think "they'd better get on the ball and make all their new computers 64-bit," not even the powerbook, yet. it would be nice, i would love it, but i really don't expect it.
shadowfax is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 02:35 PM   #24
NavyIntel007
macrumors 65816
 
NavyIntel007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tampa, FL
Send a message via AIM to NavyIntel007 Send a message via Yahoo to NavyIntel007
Cell phone manufacturers are coming out with dual processor cell phones. Why? Because the kind of processing power needed to do all the new stuff (take pictures, surf the net, mp3...) uses too much power and would lower battery life. With two slower processors using less power all features are retained and battery life remains high.

This philosophy will not work in the computer industry. Everyone is pushing the bar upwards as far as megahertz go regardless of battery life. A dual processor laptop would have to have two processors at 2/3 the speed that we are all used to. Granted, this could be faster than the single processor model but who wants to go through the trouble to market it? Apple has a hard enough time competing with the slower processors that they have now.

Dual processor laptops may be on the way, but it's not going to be for performance and ego like what you want. It will be because there is no way to put the fastest processor available into the laptop and get a decent battery life.

I partially agree with the person who said all machines should be duals. I think all machines should be AVAILABLE in duals. I love Apple's lineup and website. But they need a lesson in customization from Dell.
__________________
Fujitsu T4020
iPod Nano 4 GB (RED)
NavyIntel007 is offline   0
Old Jul 4, 2003, 03:30 PM   #25
macphoria
macrumors 6502a
 
macphoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
That's a good point. I believe part of the reason, if not the reason, why Apple began making dual processor machine is because they got behind PC's in clock speed. If clock speed of Mac processor is high enough, there is little reason why dual processors are necessary.
macphoria is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iMac G5s recently put into a new Mac Lab! gavinstubbs09 PowerPC Macs 31 Feb 9, 2014 09:05 PM
Best Video Editing Software for G5s keremtezcan PowerPC Macs 7 Jun 27, 2013 10:29 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC