Observation about G5 roadmap

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by mcrain, May 9, 2002.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
  2. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #2
    I noticed that too, but I made the assumption at the time that it was part of the architecture, but wasn't mentioned because that didn't change from the G4. Now if I'm wrong, as well I could be, that would be screwy, don't you think?[​IMG]

    Why put all that effort into Alti-vec only to dump it in the next upgrade, doesn't really make sense.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    No, you are right, it doesn't make any sense. But, then again, it doesn't make sense to sit on your butt and not work to improve your chip designs when your competitors' chips are improving at an exponential rate.
     
  4. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #4
    Re: Observation about G5 roadmap

    I've noticed it too. I think that the reason that the G5 (G6 for that matter as well) doesn't include Altivec is because Motorola may not be supplying G5s to Apple. Do routers and such need Altivec? I'm not sure.

    The other theory is that Motorola is abiding by Apple's wishes and keeping everything hush-hush. Look at when they intro'd the Apollos. The press releases mention nothing about their use in Macs. Mainly routers and such (I think I may have answered my first question). Only after Apple announced the Dual Gig, did Motorola say that the 7455's were used in Macs.
     
  5. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #5
    also ...

    You have to look at the last time that road map was updated. I'm not looking right now, but I think it was early 2001 or late 2000.
     
  6. tortus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    Roadmap is a little dusty

    Yeah, It has not updated in a long time. I remember looking at it over a year ago with the same chart found today. As far as the g5 is concerned in the context of the roadmap, I don't think we will get much information about the chip beyond its name. I would assume that it will employ the Altivec technology. That is, if g5s are in the next "powermac" line. If they are, I pray to Valhalla that Apple ends its relationship with Motorolla and has IBM/AMD/an army of monkeys fab the chips
     
  7. peterjhill macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #7
    Re: Re: Observation about G5 roadmap

    The CPU in routers build routing tables using routing protocols, such as BGP and OSPF. Modern routers then take the table and shove it down into ASIC's that do all the actual routing in hardware. Currently Cisco uses MIPS procs in their equipment.

    I don't think routers would gain much advantage from Altivec. The Dijkstra algorithm that OSPF uses does not uses numbers big enough to see much advantage in the unit. BGP is basically a big lookup table generated by determining the fewest "autonomous systems" between two locations.

    So, now I don't think routers need Altivec
     
  8. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    #8
    Actually, Motorola won the Cisco contract mostly due to Altivec. Routing algorithms perform common repetitive tasks on large quantities of small numbers which is exactly what Altivec excels at.

    Also, even though it may not be in the roadmap, the MPC8540 which is going to Cisco does have a SIMD built in - I haven't seen any info on whether it is still called Altivec.
     
  9. wrylachlan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    #9
    Don't read too much into it

    If there is a motorola G5, it is nowhere in this roadmap. If you look at the bottom of the chart it clearly states that 8xx and 8xxx chips are for the communications market not the CPU market. Since all G5's in the chart are 85xx...
     
  10. tortus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    g5 for communications market

    But, Apple is most likely being very "hush hush" about the upcoming powermacs requiring that Motorola also play mind games by suggesting that the 85xx family be used only for communications. All I have learned about Apple's future is not to take stabs at it. Let it happen, and we will all be pleased at some point regardless of its latency in coming to market.
     
  11. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    #11
    If you look a little more closely it says communications and consumer. Apple products fall under the consumer label for Motorola semiconductor devices.
     
  12. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #12
    Actually ...

    If you look at it real closely, you'll see that Apple products would fall under the 7xxx - high performance microprocessor targeting computing and high-end embedded. The 8xxx - integrated processor targeting the Communications and Consumer markets.

    My theory is that if Motorola were to supply the G5 for Apple, it would be a 75xx chip. Right now, I'm 70/30 leaning towards IBM supplying the G5.
     
  13. eirik macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Location:
    Leesburg, VA
    #13
    Cisco

    Cisco routers would also enjoy AltiVec for encryption, IPSec that is. Applying the same operation to many IP datagrams. Oh yeah, AltiVec good, Eirik like!!!!
     
  14. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    Re: Cisco

    Definitely. Have you seen the Arstechnica forums thread about Altivec programming? It's quite interesting. Really shows off how badly PC133 ram hurts the G4.
     
  15. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    #15
    No argument for the 7xxx series. For the 8xxx series at this time Apple's products are covered under consumer.
     
  16. buffsldr macrumors 6502a

    buffsldr

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    #16
    Did you really mean "exponential"? If so, improvement vs what?
     
  17. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #17
    I don't see why ...

    Motorola already has the 7xxx series number to cover Apple's stuff. Why would they use the 8xxx moniker to tag Apple's chips? Doesn't make that much sense to me.

    More likely, if Motorola is to supply Apple with G5s, it'll be numbered as a 75xx chip.

    Maybe Motorola is calling Cisco's chips 8xxx to put their stuff "1 higher". :D


    BTW, that was a really vague reference.
     

Share This Page