MOT's next move... MCF7457

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by DaveGee, Oct 19, 2002.

  1. DaveGee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2001
    #1
  2. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #2
    Well it makes sense, as I am pretty sure that Apple will go with IBM's PPC 970 on the future PowerMacs, the eMac, iMac, Powerbook will probably stay G4. Over time Motorola will have to continue to improve and speed up the processor. This roadmap is probably pretty accurate. A 1.8Ghz eMac or iMac would be nice!
     
  3. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #3
    Note that it shows 7455 topping out at 1GHz.

    Yet that is the CPU used in the dual 1.25's shipping today. Not to start the overclocking argument again...:rolleyes:
     
  4. DaveGee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2001
    #4
    Re: Note that it shows 7455 topping out at 1GHz.

    Okay... maybe this will help end this overclock issue.

    When a target speed is hit and chips come off the line one of 4 things will happen with a given chip.

    1 - BAD CHIP goes on the junk pile (this is what drives up the price on 'good' chips.
    2 - GOOD CHIP @ SPECd SPEED (okay thats fine)
    3 - GOOD CHIP below SPECd SPEED (move that to the slower chip pile)
    4 - GOOD CHIP above SPECd SPEED (this can happen)

    Now in the past those 'better than spec' chips were just thrown into the pile with the rest of the 'just spec' chips but there is nothing from stopping MOT from putting those chips in an 'over spec' pile (only makes sence if there are a good number of over spec chips to begin with) and re-rate them as 1.25Ghz CPUs.

    Is it overclocking? I dunno... I know it is when 'joe hacker' OCs a CPU it is since JH is just 'guessing' how far he/she can push a CPU but if MOT has the kind of equipment required to really test the chip to make sure it's okay running at that speed then I'm not sure I'd call it overclocking.

    Its all how you look at it...

    Dave
     
  5. rice_web macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #5
    I do believe that this roadmap could prove very accurate.

    Those who have tried it have been able to get the 1.25GHz processors to 1.5GHz, and this from a G4 on 180nm manufacturing. A move to 130nm could easily yield 1.5GHz, and possibly more.

    Now, if only we could see 1.5GHz G4s in January...
     
  6. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #6
    The roadmap shows 7457 in early 2003...

    ... at speeds up to 1.8 GHz. Are they actually going forward with this? Someone ought to know if the chips are available in volume. With the semi division of Moto up for sale (and noise about possible purchase by ST and Hitachi), things may be iffy... Do they make money on these chips?
     
  7. beatle888 macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #7
    i cant remember where i saw it but i remember
    reading that moto will continue with there chip
    manufacturing for apple. i remember –don't
    count us out yet– i also remember something
    about apple using the IBM chip AND the moto
    chip. i dont know...we'll see soon im sure.
     
  8. MacCoaster macrumors 6502a

    MacCoaster

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Washington, DC / Rochester, NY / Lexington, NC
    #8
    Re: Note that it shows 7455 topping out at 1GHz.

    Didn't you see that chip image of the 1.25GHz one? It's a 7455A, not a 7457.

    It could be that 7455A == 7457, but I dunno.
     
  9. DaveGee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2001
    #9
    Re: Re: Note that it shows 7455 topping out at 1GHz.

    That would mean that the 1.25 was being made with a .13 process READ A LOT LESS HEAT and from what I've seen the 1.25 isn't any smaller nor running cooler...

    Like I said the 1.25 is just a 1.0 running better than it should...

    Dave
     
  10. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #10
    Well yeah I would think that Apple will continue to keep the i and e consumer lines on the 745x series of processors when and if the PowerMac goes to the PPC 970, so the chip will continue to develop much like the PPC G3 750 has since it left service in the B&W G3 towers.
     
  11. Anon macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    #11
    Re: Re: Re: Note that it shows 7455 topping out at 1GHz.

    Usually, after they have made the chip they go through it and look for bottlenecks and look for places where they can optimise it and get some speed increases. This is usually where you get the incremental speed increases on the same process. On the other hand Motorola could have pumped the bus to 166mhz and found the chip to be stable for a large enough number or chips to ship it. Either way, as long as Motorola is will to stake its reputation and stamp on the chip itself that it is a 1.25ghz chip, I don't consider it overclocking. But then who cares what I think.:p
     
  12. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #12
    This sure doesn't go along with moto selling their semiconductor unit...
     
  13. Megaquad macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    #13
    Cool, now we know for sure that Apple will never use IBM's high end cpu's in any future PowerMac.
    Why? They cannot implement AltiVec into Power4 processors! OS X would be slow on those machines because it is optimized for AltiVec, Dual G4's etc. Apple's programmers would have to do everything from beggining and consumers would suffer. No more AltiVec enhanced scrolling, MPEG-2 encoding, real-time effects with FCP, fast iMovie rendering, iTunes...
    Not to mention other pissed off 3rd party developers (especially Adobe)! So shut up about IBM chips, its not going to happen! Macs would become overally slower then with G4's.

    As for revolution (aka new powermac which is 2x faster then anything before). Well, its not going to happen either. Marketing doesn't allow it, overall manufacturing costs dont allow it and many other things dont allow it. It is always going to be like this.. So, 20% speed bump is best we will ever get, which is ok with me.
     
  14. barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #14
    whoever said apple were going to use high end IBM cpus ?

    The GPUL is a desktop cpu like the G4 is, it's just got features from the Power4 that would make it as powerful as a highend cpu, especially in a dual config with it's 6.4Gb/s of bandwidth and 2 SiMD (Altivec/VMX/Velocity Engine) units per cpu.

    Silicon Strategies Article

    I'm sure you've read this already but here's a little more info on the PPC* 970 :

    Here's more info :

    and this pretty much explains why the IBM chip is very real possibility :

    It has got Altivec (just a motorola name for the 128bit SiMD unit anyway) it's got 2 of them aswell. 1 PowerPC cpu with 2 Altivec units could be like a dual G4 on 1 chip when running certain tasks like audio/video compression, software synthesis and those worthless RC5 and SETi crunch tests people like to refer to when comparing Mac and windows PC performance.

    6.4Gb/s memory bandwidth, The G4 can only handle a measly 1.3Gb/s not even enough to fully saturate the 1 altivec unit the PPC 74xx series has.

    So I think we'll see Motorola chips at 1.5Ghz in the next mac line up and then when the GPUL is ready, apple will move to the IBM chip.

    * PPC = PowerPC as in 601,603e,604,604e,750,7400,7410,7450,7455 or G1,G2,G3 and G4 if you prefer. IT ISN'T A POWER4
     
  15. technocoy macrumors 6502a

    technocoy

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #15
    the powerPC 970

    I did a post about this on friday...
    the powerPC 970 will be in future macs... trust me

    technocoy
     
  16. technocoy macrumors 6502a

    technocoy

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #16
    one more thing

    someone, in all these conversations, has failed to mention what seems to be obvious.... I have the new dual 867 @ work and it runs hot as hell, has a huge heat sink, and the fan sounds like a jumbo jet ready for take-off, if the 1.25 is an overclocked 1.0 (which it isn't since the manufacturer doesn't overclock) then going by all the "logic" around here, the dual 867 must be an overclocked 1.0 as well!!!:rolleyes: ... c'mon people!

    technocoy
     
  17. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #17
    We might see a high end IBM processor that has altivec support... Just because there are none out now doesn't mean there will never be any out. And even without AltiVec on a fast system, the OS will be fast - altivec or not. Not as fast as it would be w/ altivec, but fast enough. Adobe might be pissed, but who cares. They can deal.

    As for no 2x speed increases - that is not true at all. I could totally see that happening. Why would marketing not allow that? Wouldn't they welcome it? If apple figured out some semiconductor manufacturing strategy right now, and started being able to produce 2.8 GHz g4's at half the cost of the current ones, why the hell wouldn't apple be able to sell it??? Im not saying that will happen, but technology is unpredictable... Be ready for anything.
     
  18. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #18
    A 130nm G4 is the obvious thing for Moto to do... and I am very much not surprised that they will keep the FSB the same. This sounds good. Should work well in laptops, iMacs, eMacs and even in lower-end PM's. Will also mean that upgrade card makers have access to faster G4's for some time. Woo hoo, my dual 800 will live on!
     
  19. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #19
    .13 micron G4+...

    ...should have frickin awesome power dissipation (G3ish). 2 cents and a used jawbreaker says the iBook goes G4 when the 7447(low power 7457) comes out! (Then, later, the TiBook can use the low voltage version of the 970, the PowerMac can have the high voltage 970, and the iMac and eMac can have 7457s).
     
  20. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #20
    Catfish_Man:

    With regards to the PBook, the way I see it Apple needs to make a choice: PC-laptop-like performance with the PPC-970 and PC-laptop-like wieght and heat output, or slim design and lower performance, as we have now.

    Summary: I really don' think a fast 130nm PPC-970 will work in a 1" thick laptop frame. Maybe a low-volt, low-clock version... much much slower than the PMacs. Also note that laptops basically make feeding the PPC-970 FSB impossible... a dual-channel DDR chipset is just not very practical for a laptop. Especially not a 1" thick laptop.
     
  21. Beigean macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    CA
    #21
    barkmonster:

    according to motorola the G4 has four altivec units

    7455 info

    now, motorola does have different ways of counting things than other folks. my guess is that the 970's implementation of Altivec is on par with that of the 7455, hence the linear scaling of RC5 performance.

    don't expect the 970 to have double the altivec performance of a G4
     
  22. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #22
    Beigean:

    There is currently a lot of uncertainty about the subject, because people often refer to all four AltiVec funtional units as one AltiVec unit. I think the orginal G4 has only two AltiVec functional units, BTW.
     
  23. Switcher2001 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #23
    Processor speed vs. Application speed

    Hi. This is my first post here, although I've been reading the forums every day for the past six months or so... ;-) For some reason, I just felt roiled up enough to register as a member and say something about this issue.

    I'm really getting frustrated Apple's deceleration of processor speed increases and their tendency, lately, to come out with dreadfully slow applications. I switched to an iMac (Sage) at the beginning of 2001 because I was sick of Microsoft as a company and I was fed up with Windows crashing all the time. At the time, I was happy with the processor speed, and Apple seemed to be keeping up with the Intel, AMD, etc. processors just fine. I also got my iMac because I was looking forward to OS X.

    But lately, it's amazing to me how far behind Apple is lagging in processor speed. And what is it with the latest iApps? iCalendar is the slowest application I have ever used on any platform in my life. It nearly choked when I imported three year's worth of events from Palm Desktop. PD zipped along as happy as a honeybee with three years of calendar events (it's ugly compared to iCal, and it doesn't use the iCalendar standard, and it's not a Cocoa app, but at least it's fast). I finally ended up spending about five hours going through all my calendar events from 2000 and 2001 and saving them to their own calendars. Once I archived 2000 and 2001, I saw a dramatic speed increase in iCal, but it's still a slow application even with just a year's worth of events to carry.

    I just don't understand what in the world could take an application such a long time to perform the simplest tasks. How can Apple afford to make the slowest applications ever at a time when their processors are the slowest in the business? Why did it take Apple over a year to accelerate OS X's Finder so that it didn't take a full three seconds to move from file to file in icon view using the arrow keys? It just boggles my mind.

    Believe it or not from the way I'm ranting, I'm an avid Mac fan. I have no desire to return to "my clunky Windows world," as one of the Switchers says. It burns me, though, when I'm using Word X on my 600 MHz iBook with 384 MB RAM and it's three or four times SLOWER than Word 97 ever was on my old Pentium 125 MHz machine with 128 MB RAM! I mean, why bother having all this processor speed and RAM when applications are slower than ever? :confused: I just don't get it. I love it that my Mac hardly ever crashes, though... and it's gorgeous... and intuitive... etcetera... but, IMHO, Apple—and all other software developers—should focus more on application speed than processor speed.
     
  24. voyagerd macrumors 65816

    voyagerd

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    Rancho Cordova, CA
  25. MacTech macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    #25
    Re: Processor speed vs. Application speed

    That sure is one hell of a RANT. I have an iBook and several Windows boxen. No way is what you say above true on my hardware or any of the ones I admin. Three to four times slower, I highly doubt that it is even slower than a P3 750.
     

Share This Page