DP PowerBook G5s?

[nuckinfutz]

Dual PB's won't happen

DP Powerbooks won't happen. Users need Battery longevity over speed in most cases.

Here is how Apple will do it.

90nm 970s will hit early next year. We'll have our first G5 Powerbooks. 6-8 months later we'll have another speedbump. Powerbooks will hit 2.5Ghz on the high end.

Early 2005-Mid 2005. Apple will announce the use of the POWER5 Derivative Processor. Most likely named the PPC 980. This will be fabbed at 90nm and will support Simultaneous Multithreading(SMT)

The advantage of using SMT is to split a processor into "Logical CPUs" without the need to increase the CPU real estate on a motherboard. So you will effectively have Dual Processing in many areas without the additional heat and space requirements.

Those of us that think Duals and Quads are inevitable have to look at the changes currently going on in the Microprocessor arena. Quads will exist but they will always be very expensive. The cheaper solution is to transition to a processor with Multithreading support(SMT, Hyperthreading) and then move to Dual Cores with SMT per core. Within 5 years you will most likely be using a computer with Two Physical CPU. Each CPU will have 2 cores and each core will support SMT. Therefore you will have the logical equivalent of 8 CPUs although your Motherboard only needs to support the pin count for two CPUs.

As you can see ..this makes far more sense for many reasons beyond cooling.

 

[MacFan25]

I don't think that this will happen for a while for one reason - battery life. Maybe if we get fuel-cell powerbooks, then we can have dual processers in them.

 

[Panther 970]

once again, I have edited my original post in this thread

 

[shadowfax]

Re: DP PowerBook G5s?

Originally posted by Panther 970
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.

i think there is one fact that will remain throughout: a desktop computer at the highest end will always be faster than a laptop at the highest end, especially in an apple world where the highest end is always dual proc.

now, given that, there are a number of ways you can get a lesser amount of processing into a laptop. one is to clock the processor high and give it scaling to adjust for different processing situations. apple does this minimally, and it's really a waste of time at the level they do it--as in, you can have the proc clock down to like 667 MHz when you unplug it. it doesn't adjust based on usage at all.

another way to make the laptop run is to have two even lower clocked processors in it. then you could shut one down. yeah, that sounds practical. you would take massive performance hits with it off, for one, and then you have this big waste of space when it's off. also, when you are talking about running basically the same processor as the desktop, which apple seems to like to do still, it is going to be doubly expensive to buy 2, not 1 processors.

conclusion: i don't think this feature would change anything. they are still impractical. dual core processors would be nice, and even practical, someday not too far off, but i don't think 2 physical procs is at all.

 

[gopher]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
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.

Just FYI, before Steve Started Apple was before Apple existed. Steve Jobs started Apple with Steve Wozniak in the beginning. Now if you mean before Steve came back to Apple as part of the NeXT deal your statement would make a little more sense.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by gopher
Just FYI, before Steve Started Apple was before Apple existed. Steve Jobs started Apple with Steve Wozniak in the beginning. Now if you mean before Steve came back to Apple as part of the NeXT deal your statement would make a little more sense.

it was a joke, mate. i might as well have said, since before the beginning of time. i am very aware that steve jobs "started" apple. now if i said he started apple, how could i have thought that it existed before that? how do you start something that exists already (other than, say, a car engine)?

thanks for the heads up, but i think you just made an ass of yourself

 

[gopher]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
it was a joke, mate. i might as well have said, since before the beginning of time. i am very aware that steve jobs "started" apple. now if i said he started apple, how could i have thought that it existed before that? how do you start something that exists already (other than, say, a car engine)?

thanks for the heads up, but i think you just made an ass of yourself

Who is the one making an ass of themselves? Factually your statement made no sense. Without the proper facts, even a joke can sound awkward.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by gopher
Who is the one making an ass of themselves? Factually your statement made no sense. Without the proper facts, even a joke can sound awkward.

that's true, except when your joke employs a rhetorical technique like "contrary to fact" statements. this clearly was. i went back and looked, and there was no logical way, even given the wrong facts, you could misinterpret my statement. it's very clearly intended to be as oxymoronic as "since before the beginning of time." I'm sorry you didn't catch it, but don't go calling me an ass because you made a mistake. i was just joking around with you in any case.

 

[iMook]

Geek Note: the only advantage that quantum processing has over silicon processing is its ability to be massively parallel on a single qubit. Thus, the Ghz number wouldn't actually matter in a quantum computer, for it would process numerous simultaneous calculations per clock cycle. Also, the operating system would need to be radically different than any current operating system, because unless you want a quantum processor just to run 46 iterations of Photoshop at once or model the planet's weather, you'd need a VERY fast and VERY reliable calculation router, splitting your program's linear code into parallel code for the quantum CPU to crunch, then have the same router merge the finished products into a single coherent data stream. Currently envisioned applications of quantum computing extend from weather modeling to cryptography to hydrodynamics. All of these need numerous parallel calculation streams, but I don't see how your run-of-the-mill Photoshop 15.1 will need hundreds of continuous simultaneous calculation streams.

Anyways, current quantum computers use NMRs and water/Styrofoam. So, we're talking far future here, unless a truly miraculous breakthrough is developed/discovered.

 

[Sun Baked]

Open foot, insert mouth

 

[iMook]

I fully agree with Shadowfax.

gopher, the rhetorical technique that Shadowfax is using is commonly referred to as "humor", specifically, the art of "exaggeration".

If you want other similar artworks, read Dave Barry or Tony Kornheiser.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by iMook
Geek Note: the only advantage that quantum processing has over silicon processing is its ability to be massively parallel on a single qubit. Thus, the Ghz number wouldn't actually matter in a quantum computer, for it would process numerous simultaneous calculations per clock cycle. Also, the operating system would need to be radically different than any current operating system, because unless you want a quantum processor just to run 46 iterations of Photoshop at once or model the planet's weather, you'd need a VERY fast and VERY reliable calculation router, splitting your program's linear code into parallel code for the quantum CPU to crunch, then have the same router merge the finished products into a single coherent data stream. Currently envisioned applications of quantum computing extend from weather modeling to cryptography to hydrodynamics. All of these need numerous parallel calculation streams, but I don't see how your run-of-the-mill Photoshop 15.1 will need hundreds of continuous simultaneous calculation streams.

Anyways, current quantum computers use NMRs and water/Styrofoam. So, we're talking far future here, unless a truly miraculous breakthrough is developed/discovered.

i did a huge paper on quantum computers for my IB diploma (which i am glad to say i found out an hour ago i got an A on ), and yeah, they are way future tech. and the algorithms only help you a lot with patterned occurrences, which should have a pretty good yield on graphics, someday, actually--but perhaps not. i may be confusing my limited understanding of image manip algorithms.
one thing's for sure, it won't be half as long till we see that kind of improvement, the government will be using quantum computers to make every kind of coding technique we have utterly moot

 

[jefhatfield]

i made at least three threads over the years wondering about dual G4 laptops from apple

now that the G5 is out, i don't think there will be dual G4s....but maybe dual G5s

but make it like this...with ac power, let the machine be in dual mode as the default

and for battery mode, have the default be one processor with the option for two if the user wants to make it that way...i couldn't imagine any more than 90 minutes battery for a dual G5 laptop with a 12" inch screen and 4.6 lb form factor

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i made at least three threads over the years wondering about dual G4 laptops from apple

now that the G5 is out, i don't think there will be dual G4s....but maybe dual G5s

but make it like this...with ac power, let the machine be in dual mode as the default

and for battery mode, have the default be one processor with the option for two if the user wants to make it that way...i couldn't imagine any more than 90 minutes battery for a dual G5 laptop with a 12" inch screen and 4.6 lb form factor

i still think the problem is waste. they are supposed to be portable, and the cooling and logic board placement for 2 chips would be outrageous. it would be more advantageous, i think, in any case to have a single processor with clock scaling, maybe dual cores with only one active till the load reaches a certain level or something. having 2 CPUs though still seems like such a waste. you still get more performance out of a doubly clocked proc, which would probably produce the same heat dissipation as duals.

 

[jefhatfield]

the battery sucking issues have been a plague on the laptop world for too many years, but at a certain point, dual processors in a laptop will become no big deal

 

[shadowfax]

right. which brings us to heating issues, which are the longterm ones. my argument is that you will never be able to get the processing power of s desktop in a laptop, it's a physical fact that will apply till processors stop producing heat. in that vein, why waste money on buying two processors when one will cook your privates just fine? ultimately all you're really wanting to do is pay more money so you can say "i have two hot little numbers in my lap."

 

[jbomber]

dual what?

in the what?

you wanna put what?

 

[Frohickey]

Actually, the reason that Apple came out with multiprocessor computers it to take the argument/point away from the Intel side.

Think about it, its a losing argument when the other side says they have multi-processor systems and you only have single processor systems. It allows Apple to retain/keep mindshare.

The losing-in-the-performance side just happened, when you have a mobile phone manufacturer that just so happens makes computer chips supplying you with microprocessors.

Besides, remember, Apple has been doing multiprocessor systems since the 604e days. Somehow, we stopped doing it during the Spindler/Amelio days. Hopefully, never again. There were lessons forgotten that had to be relearned. You can't afford that in this marketplace.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, the reason that Apple came out with multiprocessor computers it to take the argument/point away from the Intel side.

Think about it, its a losing argument when the other side says they have multi-processor systems and you only have single processor systems. It allows Apple to retain/keep mindshare.

The losing-in-the-performance side just happened, when you have a mobile phone manufacturer that just so happens makes computer chips supplying you with microprocessors.

Besides, remember, Apple has been doing multiprocessor systems since the 604e days. Somehow, we stopped doing it during the Spindler/Amelio days. Hopefully, never again. There were lessons forgotten that had to be relearned. You can't afford that in this marketplace.

multiple processors have for a long time been a scam to keep performance up. for apple, anyways. if one processor had been fast enough for any task a user could do, dual processors would have been a waste. this is why Pentium 4's don't do dual. it's not because intel wasn't smart enough to make them multiprocessor capable, it's because it would be a waste. it's not a winning argument at all that dual processors are better than one. i'd take a 2 GHz G4 over your dual 1 GHz G4s easily.

think of the bandwidth you would have, 2 MB of L3 cache streaming data at about 13 GB/s... of course, that 233 MHz non-DDR bus would still ruin it just as bad... but that would be a specatacle. and you want dual processors...

 

[jbomber]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
in that vein, why waste money on buying two processors when one will cook your privates just fine? ultimately all you're really wanting to do is pay more money so you can say "i have two hot little numbers in my lap."

Hello Sterility! Heat, Airport signals, Bluetooth....

we're gonna need lead aprons to use these laptops soon....

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jbomber
Hello Sterility! Heat, Airport signals, Bluetooth....

we're gonna need lead aprons to use these laptops soon....

Lead melts at around 621 degrees F.
I think you are going to want asbestos.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
multiple processors have for a long time been a scam to keep performance up. for apple, anyways. if one processor had been fast enough for any task a user could do, dual processors would have been a waste. this is why Pentium 4's don't do dual. it's not because intel wasn't smart enough to make them multiprocessor capable, it's because it would be a waste. it's not a winning argument at all that dual processors are better than one. i'd take a 2 GHz G4 over your dual 1 GHz G4s easily.

think of the bandwidth you would have, 2 MB of L3 cache streaming data at about 13 GB/s... of course, that 233 MHz non-DDR bus would still ruin it just as bad... but that would be a specatacle. and you want dual processors...

If it was a scam, then why are professionals doing paid work on Macs and others pay premium money on multiprocessor systems. It must be that it works for them.

The reason is that the faster processor is just plain not available at all. That is just the reality of things. You want more, but its unavailable, so you put two or more together to get close to x N the performance.

233MHz? I think its still at 167MHz.

I agree with you that one running twice as fast is better than two running half as fast. But if you noticed, at least for the PowerMacs before the last ones, and the G5, the fastest processors had been used to make the dual processor ones.

They must have been hitting cooling limits, power limits, or both that made them throttle it down.

 

[blogo]

Ok, imagine there was a dual processor powerbook g5 and there was an optoin to turn of one of the cpu's to make the battery last longer.
Now, would you have to restart the machine everytime you switched to single- or dualmode? Is letting you do this actually healthy to the system?

Can somone with the proper knowledge here explain how this could be done in the real world?

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If it was a scam, then why are professionals doing paid work on Macs and others pay premium money on multiprocessor systems. It must be that it works for them.

The reason is that the faster processor is just plain not available at all. That is just the reality of things. You want more, but its unavailable, so you put two or more together to get close to x N the performance.

233MHz? I think its still at 167MHz.

I agree with you that one running twice as fast is better than two running half as fast. But if you noticed, at least for the PowerMacs before the last ones, and the G5, the fastest processors had been used to make the dual processor ones.

They must have been hitting cooling limits, power limits, or both that made them throttle it down.

yes, but escape your mac world to intel's, and notice that dual processors are rare, and they still have really high-performance chips. that's what i mean by scam, it was just a way for apple to get performance that came even close to intel as motorola pumped out poor performing chips.

the power has just been unavailable in the PPC world.

Eple--with today's technology, not at all. if they put them into a laptop, you would be able to reactivate the processor at will.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Dual processors would be possible but you wouldn't get dual 1.5 Ghz. Instead you'd get dual 800 Mhz that has similar performance as a single 1.5 Ghz. at least half of the power usage. Of course that wouldn't immediately equate to double the battery life because Apple would give you less battery. But having less battery would allow for a lower weight.

It'd be a harder sell because it seems like the industry thinks that people only glance at the numbers and not the word "DUAL" in front of it. 8 hour battery life or more would be a super selling point however.

People need to just realize here that if Apple creates a dual processor laptop, it will be for different reasons than them making a dual processor desktop.