IBM's Latest 2.5GHz PPC970FX Info

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Sun Baked, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
  2. Sun Baked thread starter macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    As stated by others, looks like he found more cool stuff.

    like this IBM graphic on the 2.5GHz PPC970fx...

    Figure 2. Maximum power envelope from 0.8 to 1.3 V showing the power reduction possible through power-tuning methods.


    Figure 3. Maximum power and nap power envelopes showing transitions from maximum power to nap power at f, f/2 and f/4, and then to deep nap at f/64.



    But the compromise in POH reliability the for the 2.5GHz PPC970FX is quite interesting. :eek:

    Plus this chip is "supposed" to be as miserly as the old 1.8GHz PPC970 which had a "typical" of 50W -- and we now see a max here of 100W. ;)
  3. alexf macrumors 6502a


    Apr 2, 2004
    Planet Earth
  4. Sun Baked thread starter macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    POH reliability could be shorthand for MTBF rating of 100,000 Power-on-hours
  5. MacinDoc macrumors 68020


    Mar 22, 2004
    The Great White North
    Didn't I read somewhere that the "typical" heat dissipation of PPC chips as quoted by Apple/IBM is usually about 1/2 of the maximum heat dissipation?
  6. Fender2112 macrumors 6502a


    Aug 11, 2002
    Charlotte, NC
    Anyone care to translate this to Southern Redneck? :D
  7. Celeron macrumors 6502a

    Mar 11, 2004
    Sure thing.

    Current the 970FX processor has the following problems:
    1. It can't run with voltage under 0.8v because of a technical problem in the manufacturing process (0.90nm). The lower the voltage, the lower the power consumption, thus the lower the heat output. This is probably why you won't see a G5 Powerbook for a while.

    2. It can't run reliably at voltages over 1.2. At 1.3v, the voltage required for speeds above 2.5gig, the reliablility of the processor goes down.

    At least thats what I understand all the above mumbojumbo to be talking about.

Share This Page