IBM's 90nm PowerPC 970FX

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Jan 21, 2004.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    IBM has posted the first official information of the PowerPC 970FX (90nm PowerPC) in this PDF entitled "IBM PowerPC Quick Reference Guide".

    According to the document (page 10), the PowerPC 970FX is the 90nm version of the PowerPC 970. A comparison chart reveals that the 970FX consumes 24.5W at 2.0GHz while the original 970 consumes 51W at 1.8GHz. The 970FX speeds are only listed as 1.4-2.0+ GHz, however, revealing no information as to the top speed of the chip, though the Bus reaches 1.1GHz (vs 1.0GHz of the PowerPC 970).

    The 90nm PowerPC is widely expected to power the next PowerMac revisions, and are currently being used the recently revised Xserve G5s. The 970FX was first referenced in this rumor report but few other processor details accompanied that report.
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Location:
    NY
    #2
    Clock it at 1.6 or 1.8 and throw it in the 17inch PB ASAP. My $$$ is waiting.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    ¡Oh Super Sí!
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    #4
    For a reality check, how much does the chip in the current G4 PowerBook use?
     
  5. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    #5
    1.1Ghz bus implies 2.2Ghz CPU clock

    lets hope that isn't the upper limit for this revision.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Location:
    NY
    #6
    10 W @ 1 Ghz is the current g4's power consumption. Clock that fx puppy down to 1.8 or 1.6 and your at about 16/18 watts. Beef up the battery in the current unit and wallah, you have a laptop with about a 2hr battery life that will make the g4pb look like a joke (performance wise). What do those 3ghz p4 laptops consume anyway?
     
  7. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #7
    Just have to say thanks to M.Isobe for pointing the document out.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #8
    G4 Power consumption

    Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading that the G4 in the current powerbooks consumes 10W.. I'm sure Arn can give the actualy numbers.

    Of this I'm sure, the 24.5W while impressive as all get out, is probably at least double the current PB.. So maybe not at that speed, BUT even if you put a 1.2GHz G5 in the PB you'd have a 600MHz bus anf the option to get some serious RAM in the box.. that alone would make the current PB's seem like calculators..


     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    #9
    here you go
     

    Attached Files:

    • g4.jpg
      g4.jpg
      File size:
      39.7 KB
      Views:
      12,308
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #10
    Well it is nice to see IBM try to improve things, but why still such a low amount of L1, L2, and L3 cache?

    The Pentium 4 was soundily defeated by the AMD 64 FX-51 (L1:128k,L2:1MB) and then Intel released the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition which is just a P4 with L1: 8k, L2: 512K, and a L3: 2MB and then it soundily defeated the AMD 64.

    Now the PowerPC 970 has a measily 32K L1 and a tiny 512K L2. Why doesn't IBM/Apple upgrade this tiny thing? I mean there would be a significant speed and performance boost as a result.

    Another interesting difference is the transistor count of the three processors. P4EE is 178m, AMD64 is 106m, and Apple is 58m.

    Aside from that, Apple needs to put out a true 64-bit OS.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Mr Maui

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #11

    I was just wondering about the power consumption ... thanks. But, I can honestly say that as a traveling professional two hour battery life will never cut the mustard. It burns 12.5 watts at 1.4 Ghz, plus with chip enhancements of the G4 should in itself blow out the present G4s, and have decent battery life. That's my two cents ... <but still have a pocket full of change ... LOL> :rolleyes:
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    MoparShaha

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    PowerBook G5 for the 20th Anniversary?

    Well, someone had to say it. ;)
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Mr Maui

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #13
    What is the wattage consumption of the current 1.3 GHz?

    Spec sheet for the 970 FX says it consumes 12.3w at 1.4 GHz and 24.5w at 2.0 GHz.

    <change pocket is draining slightly>
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Frobozz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    South Orange, NJ
    #14
    Laptops

    The first thing I noticed was how relatively little wattacge is consumed by these chips. In turn, I immediately think of G5 Laptops.

    Personally, I'd rather take a dual 2.6 Ghz G5 Desktop than a 1.6 Ghz - 1.8 Ghz laptop because of the type of daily tasks I go through. But a laptop sure would be nice, and I'm not looking to replace a desktop with it.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #15
    Performance numbers

    If you compare the performance numbers, the 970FX is a bit slower per MHz for SPEC numbers than the original 970. Although this is usually the case as the processors get faster clocks, it's kind of unfortunate to see.

    It lists a 1.8GHz 970 as 828 SPECint2K and 1036 SPECfp2K. The 970FX at 2.0GHz (which is 1.11x faster in clock) gets 890 (1.07x) and 1100 (1.06x). It makes me wonder how it will scale into the 2.4+ GHz range.

    On the other hand, cutting the power consumption in half is pretty sweet. 25W is very respectable at 2GHz! Plus, it is rated to operate hotter than boiling water :)
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Sabbath

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London
    #16
    12.3 watts that must be do able surely. But then again isnt that just the processor? I dont know how much heat the buses would pump out at the necessary higher clock speeds?
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Mr Maui

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #17
    Just found a spec sheet for the 7455 at 1GHz and it says the typical consumption is 15w. Does that seem right?

    Seems pretty high if the 1.4GHz G5 is only requiring 12.3w.

    Any thoughts?
     
  18. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    #18
    the MIPS on te older 970 is alot higher than the FX version, I'm wondering wh the diffference would be so much.

    970 1.8 7584 MIPS

    970FX 2.0 5800 MIPS

    Anybody care to fill me in?
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #19

    Umm... 512K L2 cache tiny? 32K L1 tiny! i don't think so. yes L3 cache is nice, L2 is imporant.. but L1 is the most imporant. That is where the cpu is directly getting data. Now from what you said the ppc970 has 4 times as much L1 cache then the P4. What does that mean. Less cache misses, less main memory access, and less stalled pipelines.
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Location:
    NY
    #20
    Whats really important here is that now we know for sure that a g5 pb *can* be produced and that it would be a practical machine (It woulden't be by any measure with the 970)


    oops almost forgot speed bumps for the desktops. BringemonAPPL.
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    #21
    They willprobally go with a 3x multiplier. That would put us at 3.3 GHz.

    On the other hand they could have some info embargoed.

    What is most interesting is the 1.4 GHz wattage, I wonder if that is average or max. Further I do hope that they have done some work on the system controller as we are talking almost 30 watts there. A 64 bit laptop would be neat but I do hope that a 970 is worthwhile at these speeds.

    Dave

     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    #22
    Originally posted by csubear
    I am not disputing anything you say, but I just wanted to add something in the mix here...

    The Pentium is only a 32-bit chip, so when the 970 is running in full 64-bit mode, it only has the equivelent of twice the cache. I agree that the L1 cache size could be improved.

    Also, the data cache is only 32kb, the instruction cache uses a separate 64kb. The spec sheet for the P4 Extreme does not list a separate amount for instruction cache. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses of the x86 architecture -- it does not include a separate cache for instruction data. (Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the source of the data buffer overrun error that plagues PCs?)

    In addition, the P4 Extreme's L3 cache is running at 800mhz or 1/4 the speed of the processor. I could not locate the speed of the L1 and L2 for the P4e, but IBM explicitly states that both the L1 and L2 cache runs at the full processor speed. The data-sheet for the P4e does describe the two ALU (integer calcs) as running at "twice the core clock" which is 1600mhz for the P4e. This is also unlike the 970xx which runs at the full clock speed.

    If Apple can release a Dual 2.6ghz in a few weeks, then Mac users can truely brag about the fastest personal computer.

    Details on P4 Extreme are from here:
    http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium4HTXE/
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Location:
    West Texas
    #23
    65 nm

    how long until the 65nm processors make it to production? will they make it in a pb by 2005?
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    #24
    Don't underestimate the importantce of cache. Not only can you increase performance but you can cut averge power usage.

    A larger cache could be very important if this chip ends up in a portable as they are very likely to cut e-bus speed to save power. Slow your interface bus down and we will all be wishing for more cache.

    Dave



     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Location:
    Finland
    #25
    I know nothing, but I would take that as a typo. A linear scaling from 1.8 to 2.0 gives us almost 8500, true that the spec numbers do not scale linearily, but that looks quite weird.
     

Share This Page