90nm Growing Pains

[JFreak]

Here's the article
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2004/20030330.shtml

this article makes one solid point: apple has decided to aim to 100dpi resolution instead of letting the resolution scale. this might be under development in apple r&d and there's a lot more to think than the article has mentioned. (actually, the article only mentioned what microsoft has done ten years ago, nothing more.)

 

[aswitcher]

this article makes one solid point: apple has decided to aim to 100dpi resolution instead of letting the resolution scale. this might be under development in apple r&d and there's a lot more to think than the article has mentioned. (actually, the article only mentioned what microsoft has done ten years ago, nothing more.)

What I felt the article made clear was that Apple could go for much higher resolution screens and are well situated to do so, but its going to require some sort of signficant upgrade to the osx (say in 10.4 or even a 10.3.x) to allow this to happen. When they do they can bring out new screens with higher resolutions - such as the G5PB - and allow people to view sharper images/video etc. That's one of the reasons I was hoping the G5PB and the larger screens were out by now so I could know if they were headed in that direction.

 

[Sun Baked]

While I could be reading this wrong, I'd be curious to see what sources you have that say the G5 treats two 64-bit RAM slots as one 128-bit. The implication of the above passage is that it accesses the two slots separately, reading and writing at both edges of the clok cycle.

I'm always open to the idea I could be wrong, and I'm not an electrical engineer. I just know a few of them and tend to read things for myself.

This is all in the discussions from when the G5 was first released, Apple uses 128-bit memory bus in all the documents and the stuff on reading and writing on the rising and falling edge is a typical DDR explanation.

Apple also uses quite clearly that the elastic-Bus transfers data in two directions at the same time.

Of course if you want to catch up on all 2500 posts about the G5 and the architecture...

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9080959175

You can read the posts or take Apple at their word when they say the DDR400 memory is 128-bit instead of 2 64-bit DDR400 channels or even the crazy math DDR800 in Intel speak.

---

As far as reducing the speed of the System Controller and getting rid of the stuff that's not needed.

PowerMac G5 System Controller Heat Sink

 

[JFreak]

well, yes. currently osx ui elements seem to have fixed pixel dimensions, meaning menubar on 12" ibook is smaller than menubar in 14" ibook, and they need to change that.

microsoft's implementation is kind of technical and therefore almost nobody uses it, but i can see apple adding a simple and easy-to-use dimension calibration into displays preference pane (next to color calibration tab for example) - they only need to put in one slider that scales the screen elements without telling user anything about resolutions.

 

[Benjamin]

Well even tho there is a lack of 90nm chips that are coming out for apple/ibm, I think this is in someways pretty good since that means that demand is over production. And unlike moto IBM will commit to this venture then scaling it down.

 

[eSnow]

Uh, hey... The 750vx is a G3. It's a super-optimized design that beats the G4 clock-for-clock, is higher frequency to begin with, has a lower heat profile, a higher system bus, and generally beats the crap out of the current chip. A 2.0ghz 750vx is supposed to run at 11 watts, which is a significant drop over the G4 while also making the G5 look a bit ridiculous as a laptop chip.

The only drawback is that it is vaporware.
The IPC of all other G3's (750 - 750gx) is much worse than that of the G4, so I'd be cautious about projections for the 750vx. The 74xx is much more than a 750 with AltiVec bolted on - even if people try to negate this on the rumor boards.

 

[Thor74]

IF you believe everyhting on rumor boards/sites, and IF you are long time mac fan... this all reaks of deja-vu... We all hated Motorola and it's lack of drive on the G4. Now we all get to scream at IBM for not being able to pump out the G5 fast enough... At some point, we will have to turn our eyes to the main company - Apple - and place just a tiny bit of blame on their processor decisions.

 

[Phinius]

Update G4s coming this summer

This PDF http://www.motorola.com/mot/doc/0/786_MotDoc.pdf is from a presentation Moto did back in June 2003. They reckon the G4 is going all the way to 2Ghz and Dual Core. I'm not sure exactly what they mean with DDRI and DDRII built in - I presume they are adding a memory controller which would cure the current problem with the G4 MPX bus maxing out at 167Mhz. That would be nice. RapidIO isn't going to be too popular with Apple I'd guess after they've plumped for HyperTransport in the G5.

Anyway, that would still make for a pretty damn fine laptop even if it came out in Jan 05. I'd suspect a 2Ghz G4 with built in memory controller would wipe the floor with even a G5 2Ghz bearing in mind the G4's shorter pipelines.

Could you imagine the uproar if Apple did come out with another G4 Powerbook after this one though from the "G5 or I'm buying a Dell" crowd?

Motorola also stated last year that the plan is to double the frequency of the G4 about every 18 months. That essentially means the G4 would move to 2GHz about July 2004. So, expect either a dual-core 2GHz G4 chip or a single 2 GHz G4 processor about that time.

 

[pgwalsh]

The problem is not the etch-size reduction to 90nm. It's the transition to Strained Silicon on Insulator (SSOI) instead of Silicon on Insulator (SOI).

Maybe I missed your piont, but isn't Intel also haveing 90nm woes?
---- On Another Note ---
I’ve reevaluated my expectations for Apple and their product release cycle. Since it’s getting more difficult for processor manufactures to ramp up speeds and there’s been notable cooling problems with the transition to the 90nm process, I wont expect clock speed upgrades as frequently as in the past. However, I’d like to see more than one speed bump a year. It will be a good thing when IBM gets things ironed out, but I don’t expect the speed increase that we saw with Intel going from 2.0Ghz to 3.0Ghz or farther.

I don’t think it would be a bad thing for Apple to have revision releases with newer better components beyond the stock components (Video cards, DVD drives etc.). If they would also mention other improvements, such as chipset revisions, in the release, that would be a good thing.

 

[blackfox]

Muahaahaahahahahahhahahahahahaaaaaaaaahaahaaaaaaaaa. You. have. no. clue. Actually, we are indeed not "in the risk", because all Apple can offer in the notebook market is already eating dust by the shovel.

Test drive any Centrino out there and report back.

Sorry, don't agree. I do believe that the pentiumM and the Centrino chipset are superior to G4s, but not by a ridiculous margin. Perhaps 10-15% at most...again, in a notebook, performance is not the only factor...both offer good performance and battery life...choose as you will.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Motorola also stated last year that the plan is to double the frequency of the G4 about every 18 months. That essentially means the G4 would move to 2GHz about July 2004. So, expect either a dual-core 2GHz G4 chip or a single 2 GHz G4 processor about that time.

LOL sorry but thanks for the laugh, I dont see why they didnt just try to pump up the 130 nm process G5 to 2.2 or 2.4? also why not release 970 imacs at say 1.6 & 2.0 . . didnt they get good G5 yields at 130nm?

 

[thatwendigo]

Does anyone have any real information on the mythical 750vx? All I've ever seen has been posted in this forum. Links????????

A Google search shows only rumor sites at this point. If it's official, then it's buried some way that the search engines don't touch on it.

What I felt the article made clear was that Apple could go for much higher resolution.....

For something that was "made clear," you seem to have a hard time explaining just what the difference is. Maybe you should find the source so that we can register out opinions on it.

As far as reducing the speed of the System Controller and getting rid of the stuff that's not needed.

Interesting. That's about the size of the heat pipe in the eMac, which means that the ASIC's either taking advantage of convection in a much more efficient way, running between 15 and 30 watts, or there's something funky going on.

At some point, we will have to turn our eyes to the main company - Apple - and place just a tiny bit of blame on their processor decisions.

Except IBM hasn't pulled a Motorola on us yet. The G5s are a stronger design than the G4s, they're not jumped-up embedded processors, and they have legs. On top of that, they're intended for use in machines that IBM will be producing, too, so we're going to see push for them.

You also, rather conveniently, leave out that IBM is having trouble with doing something that Motorola never really did for us - technical innovation. The jump to 90nm and adding SSOI are big deals.

LOL sorry but thanks for the laugh, I dont see why they didnt just try to pump up the 130 nm process G5 to 2.2 or 2.4?

You wouldn't, given that you don't even understand the basic heat profile of the G5. With the original generation, running at 2.0ghz was over 50watts. That's the hottest processor Apple's used in a long time, if not ever. Pushing the clock up on the same design means decreasing overal speed gain for increasing heat, which Intel has found out with their 90-100 watt chips.

Yes, it probably could be done if they were going the route of the kludge and pray, like Intel does.

also why not release 970 imacs at say 1.6 & 2.0 . . didnt they get good G5 yields at 130nm?

Because they're too hot. Jesus, how many time do I have to say this, DHM?

G4 iMac: G4 @ 1.25 (~15-22watts), 167mhz bus (unknown wattage), PC 2700 RAM (cooler), and PATA hard drives
G5 iMac: G4 @ 1.6 (~30-35watts), 800mhz bus (needs it own heat pipe), PC 3200 RAM (hotter), and SATA hard drives (faster typically = hotter)

Never mind the cost... Everything you just put in the case made the heat jump.

 

[pgwalsh]

You also, rather conveniently, leave out that IBM is having trouble with doing something that Motorola never really did for us - technical innovation. The jump to 90nm and adding SSOI are big deals.

You wouldn't, given that you don't even understand the basic heat profile of the G5. With the original generation, running at 2.0ghz was over 50watts. That's the hottest processor Apple's used in a long time, if not ever. Pushing the clock up on the same design means decreasing overal speed gain for increasing heat, which Intel has found out with their 90-100 watt chips.

So perhaps they should have implemented SSOI on 130nm and bumped the processor speed while getting the 90nm SSOI process right. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but we're talking big dollars here. I'd imagine SSOI on 130nm process would bring the heat down some and possibly allow higher clock rates for the super-sized heatsink PowerMacs and the ability to utilize the lower clocked 1.6/1.8 in the iMac.

 

[Bengt77]

Isn't that exactly what he meant too?!...

Sorry, don't agree. I do believe that the pentiumM and the Centrino chipset are superior to G4s, but not by a ridiculous margin. Perhaps 10-15% at most...again, in a notebook, performance is not the only factor...both offer good performance and battery life...choose as you will.

Ummmm ... I think that's exactly what he meant too. Maybe the sarcasm was too subtle for some, but I think it was still quite obvious. Though, if I'm wrong and he actually meant the G4 was superior, then please correct me.

 

[ingenious]

I assume you know nothing about PC laptops. First off, this "luggable" nonsense has been false since the Centrino was released. My Centrino machine is the same weight and nearly as thin (like 1.25") as an Apple Powerbook - in short, it is every bit as portable. Second, the screen on my laptop absolutely wipes the floor with the junk Apple puts on its laptops - mine is a 14" screen that does 1400x1050 resolution. You'd have to get a lunch tray 17" powerbook to get that kind of screen space from Apple (and for me, screen space was really the deciding factor). As for speed, the Pentium M (the processor part of Centrino) is clearly faster than a G4 -- I do take your point however that for standard laptop tasks, this may not be noticeable. Price wise, PCs win. As for physical build quality, Apple gets the nod - contrary to popular belief, my DELL is quite solid (and its a lattitude "business model", so its silver and black, not that fisher price blue nonsense they put on inspirons), but it isnt brushed aluminum either.

So, in conclusion, both the Centrinos and Powerbooks have advantages and disadvantages. Either is a solid choice in my opinion. I just had to respond though, because I get the feeling people haven't touched a PC laptop since the centrinos were released - so they love to talk about what junk they are.

PS: I am not a "PC Troll" -- I am writing this on my first mac, a PM G5 1.8 single.

well, you're starting to sound like one! if you don't like macs, then dont come to "Mac"rumors! Dells seem too flimsy for me! when i touch my cousins, it feels like im going to break right thru the PLASTIC! Centrinos seem to be underclocked from what ive read... is that true? i dont use those ugly horrid frustrating things if it dont have to, sorry!

 

[teksmex69]

well, yes. currently osx ui elements seem to have fixed pixel dimensions, meaning menubar on 12" ibook is smaller than menubar in 14" ibook,

XP has that problem as welll. (I'm typing from it right now, with a desktop of 1600x1200 on a 16" laptop display)

Various desktop environments, most popularly run under x windows, DO have scalable elements. 1600x1200 or higher on a notebook looks awesome when your entire desktop scales correctly.

People who state that there's no need for higher resolution notebook displays, because the desktop environment elements will become too small to be comfortably seen, are simply making excuses for their OS. (cough, windows, cough, mac)

 

[MrSugar]

........................


Dell Inspiron 8600
Pentium-M 1.5ghz
XP Pro with Plus! and Digital Media
512MB RAM 1-DIMM
ATI Radeon 9600 Mobile 128MB
4x CD/DVD-R with RecordNow! and MyDVD Deluxe
80GB HD
Dell Wireless 1450 Internal 802.11
Dell TrueMobile Blutooth
McAffee Security Center with 1yr Enrollment
Dell Jukebox Plus
Dell Picture Stuiod with Photo Album Premium
Cost: $2,686

Apple PowerBook 15"
Motorola G4 1.5ghz
MacOS X 10.3.3
512MB RAM 1-DIMM
ATI Radeon 9700 128MB
SuperDrive
80GB HD
Airport Extreme
Blutooth
iLife
Cost: $2,599



I have. So what?

Dude, why is it that I always love your posts. This was beautiful, thank you for putting everything into perspective. Wow... nice work.

 

[thatwendigo]

Dude, why is it that I always love your posts. This was beautiful, thank you for putting everything into perspective. Wow... nice work.

There's two things I didn't directly point out. One is that, for about $120, you can get a 7200 RPM drive in the Dell (something I think should be an option on the PowerBooks), and that the PowerBook has a better graphics card than Dell. Take a look... Radeon 9700 vs. a Radeon 9600, with the same VRAM.

Also, thanks for the kind words.

 

[pigwin32]

Motorola also stated last year that the plan is to double the frequency of the G4 about every 18 months. That essentially means the G4 would move to 2GHz about July 2004. So, expect either a dual-core 2GHz G4 chip or a single 2 GHz G4 processor about that time.

...did they provide any information about making the fsb faster than 167MHz...

 

[pgwalsh]

Here's another comparison

Pentium® M Processor,1.7 GHz, 15.4 UltraSharp™ Wide Screen UXGAPentium® Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
1GB DDR SDRAM 2 Dimms
128MB DDR ATI's MOBILITY® RADEON™ 9600 PROTURBO
80GB Hard Drive
4x CD/DVD burner (DVD+RW/+R)
Dell® Wireless 1450 Internal Wireless (802.11a/b/g, 54Mbps)
Productivity Pack including WordPerfect® and Money®
Dell Jukebox powered by MUSICMATC

$2715.00

1.5Ghz PowerPC G4
OS X 10.3
Radeon 9700 128
80GB Ultra ATA 5400RPM
SuperDrive
Airport Extreme
Bluetooth
ILife

$2999.00

Once you upgrade the RAM, Hard drive, and video card, your paying a bit more... Actually if you just don't upgrade the Ram, you're doing quite well with Apple. I'd still buy the PowerBook.. but not with Apples memory offers.. Jackasses.

To note.. The Dell is faster has a bigger and better screen and the wireless card works on all three a/b/g.. Smooth. But's it's a friggin dell.

 

[thatwendigo]

Once you upgrade the RAM, Hard drive, and video card, your paying a bit more... Actually if you just don't upgrade the Ram, you're doing quite well with Apple. I'd still buy the PowerBook.. but not with Apples memory offers.. Jackasses.

That's your mistake. Don't buy RAM from Apple. You also left out about $300-400 in software to equal the security, innate features, and other advantages of using OS X.

To note.. The Dell is faster has a bigger and better screen and the wireless card works on all three a/b/g.. Smooth. But's it's a friggin dell.

It also doesn't use OS X, which costs it in smoothness. I'm not going to argue the Cenntrino being faster at higher clock, and that the screen is probably a bit better, but the addition of 802.11a is kind of a wash.

 

[gensor]

MacOSRumors reports

Don't laugh, I know they are the worst.

April 22: Reader Mail

David K. Every writes: Fabrication is a multi-stage process, with each stage taking time.

You can be making a ton of chip at once, but they've got to go through all the steps before getting to the other side.

So there are huge latencies (as long as 10 weeks) between starting a run, and getting finished chips out the other side.

And manufacturers usually want a significant number of chips in reserve before even considering making a model on them (more latency while that reserve is manufactured).

If something has a problem, it can stop this manufacturing pipe, and take long time to get ramped back up, and you may need to flush your reserves (throw away the bad chips).


So little problems in a single stage (like final packaging) can take weeks (months) to discover, then stall the pipe, flush the cache (reserve), and make you start over.

Two minor problems could mean many months.

Interestingly enough, IBM sources have recently echoed much of what David writes above; apparently, although the PowerPC 970FX packaging delamination issues we've reported recently were relatively simple to fix, they caused tremendous delays due to the way semiconductor ramp-ups are carried out.

Thankfully, it looks like we're getting close to the end of the tunnel; IBM sources now report that 970FX yields are strong, and the 975 is soon to begin ramping up for full-blown production in about three weeks' time.


My comment: What Apple product uses the 970FX vs the 975?

 

[Sun Baked]

...did they provide any information about making the fsb faster than 167MHz...

The were supposed to switch over to RapidIO along with the integrated memory controller.

But there were rumors that Motorola canceled their G5 project -- of which the 7457-RM (RapidIO + Memory Controller) most likely would have fit.

What is worse, is that after the cancelation rumor -- Motorola began talking widely about adding RapidIO and integrated memory controllers to all their PPC product, with zero news about doing this for the chips Apple uses.

So yes there is news about forward movement for Motorola's PPC and e-Book line, just not chips Apple would use.

Considering we used to get real good info about future product about a year out, lack of info insn't good.

 

[Phinius]

Try doing a little thinking before shooting from the hip

LOL sorry but thanks for the laugh, I dont see why they didnt just try to pump up the 130 nm process G5 to 2.2 or 2.4?

Who's they? If you mean IBM, well IBM lists the topend speed of the 970 as 1.8 GHz. Seems the 970 was pushed to 2 GHz for Apple's exclusive use. If you believe that the 130-nm process could achieve 2.4 GHz, well the Power4 has only gone to 1.7 GHz on that process size and the 970 is based on that core architecture.

also why not release 970 imacs at say 1.6 & 2.0 . . didnt they get good G5 yields at 130nm?

IBM's own estimates are that the 1.8 GHz 970 uses an average of 42 watts. The small, compact iMac processor box is not designed for dissipating such high amounts of heat. If Apple had plans to move the iMac to the G5, it was wise for them to wait until the processor moved to a smaller process size a few months after the first PowerMac G5 was available. Unfortunately, IBM has had a few delays in providing a adequate supply of 970FXs, so that maybe a reason why the iMac has not had a update recently like the eMac, iBook and PowerBook.

 

[jade]

I find that extremely unlikely. In System Preferences, you can adjust the font smoothing by degrees (with recommendations for monitor type). On top of that, all you need for an active demonstration of how silly a claim this happens to be is to go to the Dock preferences. See the Dock Size slider? Play with it. For extra fun, turn magnification on and watch icons smoothly shifting in size.

Sure looks like a "simple scaling" problem to me.

We will have to go back to disagreeing. On a PC you have the broad option of making your settings larger or smaller without effecting resolution. ie like the Mac os x zoom feature but it effects everything from icon size to menu type to dialog boxes. On a mac you have to change each individual componenet, and not all components are changeable. Windows has desktop themes like small medium and large. Potential, with Apple's superior rendering engine, this should work better, but it is currently limited by software. That is what the other posters are getting at.

It takes a lot more work to adjust your global settings to match on a mac.


Next up PC laptop screens

Powerbook screens have fallen behind in brightness and veiwing angle. PC makers like Sony and Fujitsu, as well as LCD monitor makers like Sharp and NEC-Mitsubishi are using LCDs that offer superior crispness and viewing angles more on par with high definition TV. Next time you go to best buy check out the sony xbrite screen on the high end notebooks or on Sony's wacky all-in-one. It is a mazing how much brighter and sharper these screens look. The resution on powerbooks tends to be a little low, but that isn't always a concern, bur crispness and brightness are important to most users across the board.


And those centrino notebooks:

Well the ones with the larger screens typically have a longer real-world battery life than the powerbooks. So they win on the battery count (about 20-30% more. The only apple notebook that truly tops the Centrinos in battery life is the ibook. Clock for clock the centrino varient of the p4 is faster than the g4 powerbooks, but these new upgrades should put the speeds at the top end very close to the rated speeds of those centrino notebooks.

thatwendigo: I know you like to use Dell for comparison, but I'd like to counter, that the powerbooks are very price competitive with the high-end PC notebooks, where Apple really misses is at the $1000-$1500 midrange notebook lineup. In this price range you can find a wide variety of fairly small widescreen notebooks, as well as larger screens for the consumers than the ibook offers. But with every ibook revision Apple is getting closer to providing a compelling option for PC users shopping in this price range.