Hypertransport Updated

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001
    CNet reports that a new version of the Hypertransport specification was released today.

    Hypertransport 2.0 is capable of transfering up to 22.4 gigabytes/second while the current incarnation of Hypertransport maxes out at 12.8 gigabytes a second.

    Apple has recently adopted Hypertransport for their PowerMac G5 interconnects.
  2. macrumors regular

    Feb 28, 2003
    what does that really mean as far as system speed goes?
  3. macrumors member

    Jun 20, 2003
  4. macrumors regular

    Oct 21, 2003
  5. macrumors member

    May 19, 2003
    increased data throughput
  6. macrumors 6502

    Mar 16, 2002
    yeah, I'll second that. That's a tad on the speedy side.
  7. macrumors 68000


    Jul 1, 2003
    Hold up. I know the G5's back in August use the same HT technology (i guess spec 1 if this is "2.0") as the Opterons have been using since April.

    This probably means that they are definitely prepping for a legitimate launch on the desktop--whether it be a speed bump or revision. A dual 2.2G5 is pretty much automatic and would not be much of a suprise if it was announced anytime soon.

    I don't see why they would put this into the existing G5 system because that would lead to an entirely new motherboard...pretty much tossing ou the Rev B argument. New technology usually leads to a new product, not a simple revision...
  8. macrumors 65816


    Jul 25, 2002
    Prospect, KY
    I'm betting we'll see new G5's tomorrow.

    Apple was probably just waiting for this announcement because they didn't want to release machines with the technology before the technology was officially announced.
  9. macrumors regular

    Dec 19, 2002
    I'm not sure what this exactly means but I like it.
  10. macrumors 6502a


    Nov 11, 2003
    In the Bowels of the Cosmos
    I couldn't agree more.
  11. macrumors newbie

    Dec 25, 2003
    If this is related to new powermacs then surely they would be available immediatly. If there is to be an announcement and then a waiting period why announce this now and not later when the units actually ship.
  12. macrumors 65816


    Jul 24, 2002
    Champaign, IL
    Well, I don't think we will be seeing this in ANY machines for at least the next six months.

    From the article:

    Cavalli would not comment on when companies will come out with products, but sources indicate that products could start coming out toward the end of the year
  13. macrumors 65816

    Apr 9, 2003
    What he said....

    This is a major enough piece of new technology for there to be significant gaps between announcement and implementation. It's not a trivial bit of technology to implement, so there's going to be a signficant time for testing once they've nailed down the specs.
  14. macrumors 601


    Feb 17, 2002
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    The article has a little "products may have this technology by the end of the year disclaimer" at the bottom.

    Maybe the 3.0 GHz G5 will sport it though?

    If/when the G5 gets shoe-horned into a laptop, will in utilize all the awesome bandwidth features of the G5 desktop? It seems to me that it's the loosening of bottlenecks that really adds to the G5's speed.
  15. macrumors member

    Jan 31, 2004
    Chicago, USA

    Do you think we'll see a PM update before this technology is implemented? I sure hope this feature is in store for the next G5 revision. Anybody see it happening?
  16. macrumors 68030


    Jan 9, 2002
    Ha ha haaa!
    Yeah, I agree, I think it's a bit premature to think that Apple will instantly be coming out with new G5's that use Hypertransport 2.0. I'd love it, but I'm certainly not betting on it.

    As to how this all calculates out, does anyone know if the current G5's are even close to max-ing out the current Hypertransport bandwidth? I'm also assuming that, like with FireWire or USB, Hypertransport 1.x can't be upgraded to 2.0.
  17. macrumors 65816


    Jul 25, 2002
    Prospect, KY
    Wait...You thought I was talking about Hypertransport...LOL! Oh my Gosh! I so totally was talking about another technology! LOL! Oh my Gosh! I can't believe you fell for it!



    <Crickets Chirp>

    Yeah, I'm just trying to keep myself from sounding like a complete idiot. I guess I should really learn to read the articles before I start posting.
  18. macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    Re: hmmm?

    completely ignored almost all the posts in this thread, didn't we? ;)

    i echo the 3ghz system... but i don't think this will change the G5 form factor. It's not a new technology, just a new/improved standard.

  19. macrumors 65816


    May 12, 2002
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)

    what would this do for a cluster similar to the Virginia Tech setup?
  20. macrumors regular

    Jul 22, 2002
    We won't be seeing any computers with this new technology for a while. It's going to do away with the agp slot.

    Know anywhere you can get a graphics card that doesn't use agp or pci?
  21. macrumors regular

    Jan 16, 2002
    South Dakota
    looks like another reason to wait for DP 3.0 gHz PM's
  22. macrumors 6502

    Oct 13, 2001
    Seattle, WA
    Oh man! Not another reason for "waiting"!!:eek: :confused:
  23. macrumors newbie

    Sep 23, 2003

    How soon are updated G5s coming... I'm wanting to a top of the line in about 2 months...
  24. macrumors regular

    Jan 21, 2003
    Re: interconnects

    Different type of "interconnect." Hypertransport is (primarily?) internal, ie it's for communication between chips on the motherboard of each computer/node, rather than a connection between nodes (such as infiniband). That said, it would make each individual node faster, and therefore increase the speed of the overall cluster.
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Jan 29, 2003
    There are several benefits to this technology, most notably is for MP machines.

    Think about this, the more bandwidth going in and out of the processor, the more data you can crunch. For example, getting to main memory is faster etc. (e.g. this isn't just between the CPU and main memory).

    But, you say, isn't 12.8 gigabytes/second enough even for a 3GHz processor? For almost every application that would be more than enough even with 64 bit accesses. In all likelihood it would be pretty good for even a dual 3GHz machine, even using vector instructions, for 99% of the desktop applications. However, for dual or more processors, running at >3GHz, it might not.

    I would say it would be particularly useful for things like Xserves used in a supercomputer where there is lots of data to be crunched. This would include things like the Virginia Tech machine, rendering farms (e.g. think Pixar) and the like. This is where most of the benefit would go. (It wouldn't help the speed *between* machines in the cluster, but would speed up each individual machine).

    The other area it will help is for dual core CPUs when we see them. For example, you might have a two dual core CPUs which would roughly equate to a quad processor. They would need lots of bandwidth.

    I'll be interested in seeing these machines whenever they come out - probably 9-12 months, although like everyone, I'd love a G5 PB (or an Apple branded cell phone) with it tomorrow. ;-)

Share This Page