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

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 8, 2004, 01:17 PM   #1
Converted2Truth
macrumors 6502a
 
Converted2Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hell@HighAltitude
Send a message via MSN to Converted2Truth
Top End G5 an overclock?

I am surprised that nobody else has mentioned this, but I think the Dual 2.5 is just an overclocked 2.0. Why else would they use liquid cooling? When they went down to a 90nm process, it also reduced heat. That's why the xserve G5 2.0 @ 90nm consummed fewer watts than the 130nm 2.0 in the last generation G5 desktop. So i think that they overclocked the G5 up to 2.5 using 90nm technology, and then were forced to liquid cool the steaming monster.

It's kinda funny that Steve Jobs said that they're improving in speed better than Intel at the developers conference, considering the fact that IBM has only changed their process to 90nm and apple has overclocked a 2.0. If you look at the picture from this angle, IBM hasn't made any speed improvements The new P4's run quite cool even amongst preformance increases.

Oh well, I still think i'd be awesome to liquid cool a G5. They should have added flourecent lights and stuff though. Too bad they don't sell an upgrade kit for those running 1.6/1.8/2.0 ...after all, it's just an added feature (non-nessesary) to the top-end powermac, right

Don't get me wrong though... I understand that the G5 rocks the P4 (in specific instances).
__________________
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8 (pci-x)/3.5GB/4x250GB RAID 0/ATI X800XT/Revo7.1
Join macrumors - Folding Team and help change the future.
Converted2Truth is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 01:50 PM   #2
phiberoptik957
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Your comments lack any trace of logical thought.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Converted2Truth
I am surprised that nobody else has mentioned this, but I think the Dual 2.5 is just an overclocked 2.0. Why else would they use liquid cooling? When they went down to a 90nm process, it also reduced heat. That's why the xserve G5 2.0 @ 90nm consummed fewer watts than the 130nm 2.0 in the last generation G5 desktop. So i think that they overclocked the G5 up to 2.5 using 90nm technology, and then were forced to liquid cool the steaming monster.

It's kinda funny that Steve Jobs said that they're improving in speed better than Intel at the developers conference, considering the fact that IBM has only changed their process to 90nm and apple has overclocked a 2.0. If you look at the picture from this angle, IBM hasn't made any speed improvements The new P4's run quite cool even amongst preformance increases.

Oh well, I still think i'd be awesome to liquid cool a G5. They should have added flourecent lights and stuff though. Too bad they don't sell an upgrade kit for those running 1.6/1.8/2.0 ...after all, it's just an added feature (non-nessesary) to the top-end powermac, right

Don't get me wrong though... I understand that the G5 rocks the P4 (in specific instances).

Last edited by phiberoptik957; Jul 8, 2004 at 02:28 PM.
phiberoptik957 is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 01:54 PM   #3
Laslo Panaflex
macrumors 65816
 
Laslo Panaflex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tokyo
Quote:
Originally Posted by phiberoptik957
Your comments lack any trace of logical thought.
Wow, can you please elaborate on why his comments "lack any trace of logical thought"? I really don't like it when people accuse others of being trolls, and don't even bother to explain why.
__________________
Mac Pro 2.6ghz, 12GB RAM, 4 - 1 TB HD, ATI Radeon HD 3870
Macbook Pro 15" 2.8ghz, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD || iPhone 4 16GB
Laslo Panaflex is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 01:55 PM   #4
Sun Baked
macrumors G5
 
Sun Baked's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by phiberoptik957
Your comments lack any trace of logical thought.
Especially considering that the DP2.5PM may actually be running at a lower maximum power dissipation on the CPUs than the RevB DP2.0PM.

There are quite a few hints and reliable reports that the RevB DP2.0PM is still on the 130nm process which places it's maximum power dissipation much higher than the 90nm DP2.5PM -- not quite the expected situation for an overclock.
__________________
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 8, 2004, 02:18 PM   #5
Converted2Truth
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Converted2Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hell@HighAltitude
Send a message via MSN to Converted2Truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Baked
There are quite a few hints and reliable reports that the RevB DP2.0PM is still on the 130nm process which places it's maximum power dissipation much higher than the 90nm DP2.5PM -- not quite the expected situation for an overclock.
They use the 90nm 2.0 G5 in the Xserves. The powermac line is all 90nm now (at least according to apples website...) So, considering that they have 90nm 2.0G5, and that they say they are using the 90nm 2.0G5 in the new Power Macs, then the only reason a chip which consumes less power(manufactured on a smaller process) would consume more power than it's predecessor is because it is OVERCLOCKED, and then liquid cooled.

If i lack any logical thought, let me clarify. The smaller the process, the less heat consumption. The fact that the chip generates less heat allows for the increase of cycles, thus increasing ghz etc. In this case, when they 'increased' the cycles (overclocked), the 90nm 2.0G5 got too hot, and they were forced to liquid cool the badboy. I think that air cooling would have worked, but probably caused the G5 to lose is 'quiet supercomputer' appeal. Liquid cooling is a successful way to stabalize an overclocked CPU. It seems to me that shrinking the process didn't allow for much of a speed increase (without drastic cooling measures).

All I am saying is that if you looked at the two chips (90nm 2.0, 90nm 2.5) they would be the EXACT SAME chips. Kinda like the Motorolla 7455 in my powerbook is clocked at 800mhz and 1000ghz and so on...
__________________
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8 (pci-x)/3.5GB/4x250GB RAID 0/ATI X800XT/Revo7.1
Join macrumors - Folding Team and help change the future.

Last edited by Converted2Truth; Jul 8, 2004 at 02:27 PM.
Converted2Truth is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 02:24 PM   #6
phiberoptik957
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
I am sorry that I wrote above without elaborating, I just get tired of these unsubstantiated claims that companies "over-clock" their processors just because they are hotter than the previous generation. I realize that this is about Apple but the same claims get made often when for example AMD increases the speed of their processors.

Also, I am sorry I jumped the gun and called you a troll, I em going now to edit my post and remove that.

Last edited by phiberoptik957; Jul 8, 2004 at 02:28 PM. Reason: I thought I should add a little more
phiberoptik957 is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 02:34 PM   #7
Converted2Truth
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Converted2Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hell@HighAltitude
Send a message via MSN to Converted2Truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by phiberoptik957
I am sorry that I wrote above without elaborating, I just get tired of these unsubstantiated claims that companies "over-clock" their processors just because they are hotter than the previous generation.
I never said they 'overclocked their processors beccause they're hotter'... I am saying that they overclocked their cooler processor (90nm G5) and it got hotter than the prev generation(when they overclocked the 90nm 2.0G5 to 2.5), hence the liquid cooling. This really isn't a hard concept to understand, nor is it NOT logical.
__________________
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8 (pci-x)/3.5GB/4x250GB RAID 0/ATI X800XT/Revo7.1
Join macrumors - Folding Team and help change the future.
Converted2Truth is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 02:35 PM   #8
Sun Baked
macrumors G5
 
Sun Baked's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Actually the report on the RevB DP1.8PM and the RevB DP2.0PM was...
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Isobe
Processor version of new Power Mac G5

Today, I saw two new Power Mac G5s (dual 1.8GHz and dual 2GHz) at local computer store. Both Power Macs were identified as PowerMac7,3. The PVR value of all G5s was 0x00390202. So, they are 970, not 970FX.
It seems that KeyLargo2 is updated. The revision ID of became 0x60, which was 0x20 in original Power Mac G5. The device revision of U3 is more complicated. One (dual 1.8GHz model) was 0xb3 and the other was 0x35. AFAIK U3 device-rev of original G5/dual 2GHz was 0xb3 and that of some initial model was 0x32.
The dude is a reliable source, more so than your thoughts of what you think Apple said.

He provided quite a few Japanese translations for the rumor community, and you'll even find out he knows about overclocking -- just google (Michiro Isobe AND overclock)

Plus his findings seem to fit right in there with what Apple Release a couple weeks later...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...52&postcount=1
__________________
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.

Last edited by Sun Baked; Jul 8, 2004 at 02:39 PM.
Sun Baked is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 02:46 PM   #9
Frohickey
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PRK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Converted2Truth
They use the 90nm 2.0 G5 in the Xserves. The powermac line is all 90nm now (at least according to apples website...)
Wanna bet money on that?

I'll bet my whole monthly paycheck that the whole PowerMac line is NOT all 90nm.
Frohickey is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 02:53 PM   #10
Converted2Truth
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Converted2Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hell@HighAltitude
Send a message via MSN to Converted2Truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohickey
Wanna bet money on that?

I'll bet my whole monthly paycheck that the whole PowerMac line is NOT all 90nm.
Hey.. stevey said it at the dev conference, and it's on their website... if i was ordering a new G5, i'd want it to be what they advertised.

but somehow, i fell you could be slightly correct...
__________________
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8 (pci-x)/3.5GB/4x250GB RAID 0/ATI X800XT/Revo7.1
Join macrumors - Folding Team and help change the future.
Converted2Truth is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:00 PM   #11
osprey76
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vernal, UT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Converted2Truth
I am saying that they overclocked their cooler processor (90nm G5) and it got hotter than the prev generation(when they overclocked the 90nm 2.0G5 to 2.5), hence the liquid cooling.
That makes sense to me. I think you're using the term overclocking a bit loosely. I can't imagine Apple would use a processor at a higher clock speed than it was rated by IBM. The 2.0's and the 2.5's probably are from the exact same die (1.8's, too.) The 2.5's just came through the process closer to ideal and, therefore, can run at higher speeds.

Two thoughts on the higher heat load. First, I would guess that power consumption may not ramp up linearly with clock speed. So, there could be a large jump in heat generation between the 2.0 and the 2.5 chips. Second, with the smaller chip, you now have less area to transfer the heat across. This is very pertinent in heat transfer. So, if a new 2.5 uses similar power to the old 2.0, you'll need better cooling to make it happen. If the total chip size scales the same as the process size, then you have (130-90)/130 = 31% less area in the new 2.5 from the old 2.0. That is a large difference (if my assumptions are correct) and might possibly need another wind tunnel machine or liquid cooling.
osprey76 is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:02 PM   #12
smllpx
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Just FYI
CPU Manufactures don't overclock, users do.

When chips come off the assembly line they are tested to see at what speed they can be run reliably then they are given a speed rating. As the process gets better and refined the chips are able to run at high clock speeds. I believe all the G4's come off the same line.

Overclocking occurs when a user purchases a lower rated chip and runs it at a higher speed or just running the chip past the speed rating.

edit: beaten. doh!
smllpx is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:14 PM   #13
Sun Baked
macrumors G5
 
Sun Baked's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
>Converted2Truth

The 90nm chips are most likely still constrained, with XServe G5 users are still wondering if they'll get their machines before the end of the year, this wouldn't be the case if Apple had ample supply of 90nm CPUs for the PowerMacs.

Everybody thought the choice of 1.8/2.0 in the low/mid was an odd choice when the top end was 2.5 -- again could be lack of 90nm CPUs, and ample supply of 130nm parts.

Though we'll really see if the problems are cleared up when Apple ships the DP2.5PM, or delays it.

The iMac blurb can also point to 90nm problems if it is indeed using a G5, and that's at least September.
__________________
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 8, 2004, 03:16 PM   #14
JFreak
macrumors 68040
 
JFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
liquid cooling doesn't mean overclocking but severe overclocking will mean liquid cooling. as the process shrinks, the heat also concentrates into smaller and smaller area, which is more and more difficult to cool with a fan. as the heat is in small area, so would the airflow have to be effective in that small area where the heat comes from. liquid cooling is more effective, as the heat will spread to larger area which is more trivial a task to cool down.

so in other words, the same amount of heat that comes from smaller area is more difficult to cool than the same amount of heat that comes from larger area. and if 2.5GHz@90nm generates the same amount of heat than 2.0GHz@130nm, that will not mean the new ones are overclocked - it just means that the heat becomes too hard to handle with air cooling.

just my reasoning. ask ibm if you want hard facts.
__________________
what we do in life, echoes in eternity.
JFreak is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:22 PM   #15
ddtlm
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Converted2Truth:

I'd say its not overclocked, for a couple reasons.

First, I don't think its even possible for a machine from Apple, covered by warranty, at default specs, to be overclocked. Its the same silly arguement that we all had over 1.25ghz G4's and then the 1.42ghz G4's. Overclocking is running beyond the settings that the manuafacturer stands behind. I don't care if Apple pops a phase-change cooler on a G5, they are in a position to know if that is a reliable option, and we are not. Apple can push the limits as close as they want without being overclockers, cause they know the issues and they will fix it if something goes wrong.

Second, the thing about the 90nm G5 is that its got a very small die compared to the power it consumes. At 2.5ghz the chip might only use 65W peak, but its so concentrated that it cannot be cooled sufficiently by anything short of liquid. That doesn't mean that the processor can't go faster, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't run at 2.5ghz.

People that equate elaborate cooling with overclocking need to gain perspective on this. They say that the thermal power of new processors has on average increased by 22% each year for something like the last 20 years. Used to be that processors didn't even have heatsinks. Does that mean anything with a heatsink is overclocked?
ddtlm is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:45 PM   #16
maxvamp
macrumors 6502a
 
maxvamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere out there
I remember

I have seen this garbage over on the AMD boards too..

I seem to remember when the XSERVE G5 was announced that somewhere here on MacRumors was posted a presentation of some form that actually showed that the fx version of the chip was rated to run up to 2.5 GHz, which at that time lead to a lot of speculation to the next gen of PPC64 which was called the 980. Later, rumors came around about a 975, etc.

The comments about these being overclocked are garbage until Apple starts running them at 2.6 and above. No matter what the speed, these things will need cooled, and there is nothing wrong with water cooling.

On that note, remember, it is usually the heat given off by processors that kill off other components in a computer, and not usuually the temp that the processor itself runs. If you can keep your proc from belching heat, your entire computer will last longer, and Apples are known for longevity.

Max.
maxvamp is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:54 PM   #17
varmit
macrumors 68000
 
varmit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
MAYBE

ITS JUST TO MAKE IT QUIETER!!!! Didn't you get that when they started the G5. This sets them up if the cooling unit works well. Then all G5s after these will be liquid cooled because it works a lot better, and they can make the fans not have to work so hard, making it quieter even though the G5s get faster.
varmit is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 03:57 PM   #18
Flynnstone
macrumors 65816
 
Flynnstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cold beer land
Quote:
Originally Posted by osprey76
Two thoughts on the higher heat load. First, I would guess that power consumption may not ramp up linearly with clock speed. So, there could be a large jump in heat generation between the 2.0 and the 2.5 chips. Second, with the smaller chip, you now have less area to transfer the heat across. This is very pertinent in heat transfer. So, if a new 2.5 uses similar power to the old 2.0, you'll need better cooling to make it happen.
power consumption used to be (nearly) linear with clock rate. There are two parts to the power equation; 1) leakage current and 2) switching current. There are likely more, but this is the simple explaination.
Switching current is linear with frequency. Double the frequency, double the current , double the power. Leakage current has always been part of the equation, and used to be a small part. It used to be negligible. But as you shrink feature size this has become a bigger part of the equation. I believe leakage power is in the same area as switching power. The 90nm devices "leak" like a sieve! This is a problem Intel & IBM & others are trying to deal with. Using tech like SOI and strained silicon ...

We are seeing a lot more dual (or more) systems to deal with this.
Apple is nicely working in this area . I'm glad a PowerMacs are duals now.
__________________
"You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems." - Einstein
New iMac 24"/G5 1.8/...
Flynnstone is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 04:04 PM   #19
King Cobra
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Send a message via AIM to King Cobra
Heh, they're all using the 90nm line currently: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/...09083915.shtml

And I don't think there has been a processor overclocking in a PowerMac that has then been released since Motorola's latest G4 revisions.
King Cobra is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 04:16 PM   #20
maxvamp
macrumors 6502a
 
maxvamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere out there
Talking No Overclock

specs

Sorry, just caught the speculation part. Still, I would suspect that this guy knew something.

Max.

Last edited by maxvamp; Jul 8, 2004 at 04:53 PM. Reason: jerky knee
maxvamp is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 05:27 PM   #21
MacNeXT
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
I understand the OP's thoughts on this, but as someone else said too, a computer out of the box is never overclocked by definition.

A computer is supposed to work ok, if it doesn't, the vendor should solve the problem. Even if the vendor configured a system to run at a higher clock speed as was prescribed by the CPU supplier. Whether it's a bad product or not has nothing to do with that.

Same goes for Apple. Even if the liquid cooled processor runs at a higher speed than IBM's specifications, you can assume it's still Apple quality. Whether that's good or not is another discussion ofcourse

However, if that's the case, it could turn out to be a bad decision to do it like this because for example the liquid cooling breaks down after a couple of years after warranty (just like, for example, the badly designed powerbook wallstreet hignes did).

In my opinion a liquid cooling system is just something that breaks easily and is very expensive. Therefore I would never buy it. Even if I had the money It's like having a car that's so fast that it needs a parachute to slow down because there are no breaks that can handle the speed.
__________________
Oh, and by the way, Micro$oft suxorz!!!
MacNeXT is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 05:56 PM   #22
ddtlm
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
MacNeXT:

Quote:
However, if that's the case, it could turn out to be a bad decision to do it like this because for example the liquid cooling breaks down after a couple of years after warranty (just like, for example, the badly designed powerbook wallstreet hignes did).
Heh, this is the reason I still prefer my CPUs and video cards to be passively cooled. Not that such a thing is always possible.
ddtlm is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 06:04 PM   #23
MacNeXT
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddtlm
MacNeXT:


Heh, this is the reason I still prefer my CPUs and video cards to be passively cooled. Not that such a thing is always possible.
True, even a fan breaks relatively quickly or starts to make a lot of noise after a while.
__________________
Oh, and by the way, Micro$oft suxorz!!!
MacNeXT is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 06:40 PM   #24
dudewheresmymac
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
guys when you shrink the manufacturing process down it decreases the size of the dye and because the dye is smaller then heat is consentrated in a smaller area therefore a more effective cooling method is needed. Also Apple isnt legally allowed to say that the G5 is something that it is not.
dudewheresmymac is offline   0
Old Jul 8, 2004, 06:41 PM   #25
Mord
macrumors G4
 
Mord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Old York
we'll just have to wait untill a dual 2.5GH owner pops the lid and looks on his g5 dies to see what speed they are marked at i did this with my mates dual 1.4GHz g4 back when it was debated weather it was a 1.4GHz cpu or an overclocked 1.25GHz one, the die was marked ppc 7455 1400 in little gold writing over the purple die. proof that they were 1.4GHZ moto rated chips
Mord 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
Base model to Top end Overkill Robster3 iMac 6 Mar 27, 2013 09:17 AM
top-end 27" iMac vs top-end 15" rMBP chelch iMac 1 Feb 20, 2013 12:54 PM
Top End 27" (Non BTO) MightyWhite iMac 5 Oct 24, 2012 08:56 AM
Looks like the top-end i7 also has 2MB extra cache spaceballl MacBook Pro 6 Jun 16, 2012 07:15 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 PM.

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

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