DP PowerBook G5s?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Panther 970, Jul 4, 2003.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #1
    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. ;)
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Veldek

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #2
    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...:(
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Billicus

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    Charles City, Iowa
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Billicus

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    Charles City, Iowa
    #4
    He said a future lineup, not one to be announced right away...
     
  5. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #5
    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
     
  6. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #6
    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. ;)
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Veldek

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #7
    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!
     
  8. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #8
    I have edited the original post to clear up any confusion. ;)
     
  9. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #9
    Ah, but Apple and IBM wowed us by getting the G5 out early. You never know what they might do next. ;)
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Veldek

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #10
    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?
     
  11. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #11
    One word: competition.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    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!
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    macphoria

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Bronx, NY
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Veldek

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #17
    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/daystar/mp_plus/genesis_mp932_plus.html
     
  18. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #18
    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.
     
  19. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #19
    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. ;)
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    macphoria

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    macphoria

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page