Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

loneAzdgari

macrumors member
Apr 4, 2003
99
0
UK, KENT
Originally posted by 1macker1
Dual Processor Powerbooks!!!!! That's has to be next. The g5 chip isn't coming to the PB anytime soon.

I seriously doubt that, my 1.25GHz Powerbook practically burns me as it is. Two processors would set the table alight!
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Originally posted by deputy_doofy
Why are the bus speeds so small in your prediction? I thought they were using 1/2 processor speeds for the FSB speeds, which would allude to a 1.2GHz bus for the 2.4 chip, a 1.35GHz bus for the 2.7 chip, and a 1.5GHz bus for the 3.0 chip.

Can someone confirm this?

The FSB/CPU multiplier on the 970 is design-level changable (meaning, if you have a 2:1 CPU it can't be anything else, but flip a switch on the assembly line and you're producing 3:1 CPU's instead).

It is VERY rare to be able to scale your FSB at the same rate as the CPU speed. This is why Intel has a complex (x:y instead of x:1) multiplier. In essence, the simple FSB multiplier in the G5, as I'd pointed out in May or June (before the actual release in any case) means that the next revision may well have an FSB that is slower than the current release. That is, unless the CPU speeds take a 50% leap to 3.0GHz OR Apple pulls off a miracle and can get their SC chips to handle a 1.5GHz-ish FSB speed. The latter isn't completely out of the question (the SC design appears to allow for each component to have a different bus speed as required), but would be quite a design and marketing coup.

So, I agree with the above predictions: most likely we'll see a 3:1 CPU:FSB ratio on the next release. It would be nice if we could see 2:1 remain for a while, though.
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Re: hehe, this is getting too funny

Originally posted by ffakr
That aside, we have every reason to believe that when IBM does spin off a Power5 knock off it will probably do better than scale with processor speed. The Power 5, after all, supports HT (supposedly much better than Intel's HT). A '980' will probably have a better implementation of Altivec... maybe even Altivec+ with support for DP Floats (that's a guess, but a reasonable one). IBM has said in the past that the Power5 may be 4x as powerful as the Power4+...
There are lots of reason to expect even more than a linear scale of computing power.

my 2 cents.
ffakr.

Note that the SPEC scores explicitly do NOT benefit from hyperthreading, as they are single-threaded. This is also why they do not take advantage of multiple CPUs. Also, key to the Power5 vs Power4 4x advantage is the size of the L2 cache, IIRC, which will definitely be different on the 980.

That having been said, I do agree that I wouldn't be surprised by a super-linear performance boost (even in SPEC) going from 970 to 980. Just not quite as extravagent as the "4x" reports would lead you to beleive.
 

.a

macrumors regular
Dec 5, 2001
210
0
ohhh ... i am so ready for a new power mac! and an g5 imac, too!

i'll get an new power mac g5 this spring for sure.
and if there is a new g5 imac coming, i'll get one for private use, too.

i think the future is bright in the apple world!

now, now i want itms europe asap!!!
.a
 

macshark

macrumors member
Oct 8, 2003
96
0
Originally posted by deputy_doofy
Why are the bus speeds so small in your prediction? I thought they were using 1/2 processor speeds for the FSB speeds, which would allude to a 1.2GHz bus for the 2.4 chip, a 1.35GHz bus for the 2.7 chip, and a 1.5GHz bus for the 3.0 chip.

Can someone confirm this?

The bus speeds, in the short term, are likely to be limited by the Apple's system controller chip, which is a 130nm ASIC. Even though the 90nm PPC970 will be able to support bus speeds beyond 1GHz, the first generation of 90nm G5 systems are likely to be limited to 1GHz bus because of Apple's 130nm system controller. I am sure Apple will eventually move the system controller to 90nm to improve performance, cost, power consumption, etc. but this is probably not a high priority item on the agenda right now.

One thing that could prove my bus speed predictions wrong is if IBM adds a 5:2 bus clock multiplier to the 90nm PPC970. In this case, it would be possible to have a 2.5GHz G5 system with a 1GHz bus or a 2.25GHz system with a 900MHz bus. If IBM can pull this off, we may even see a 2.75GHz (1.1GHz bus) or 3GHz (1.2GHz bus) G5 on the high end at a very high price point. This may be strategically important as Intel is planning to upgrade the external bus speed on their next gen platforms to 1.066GHz in the first half of next year.
 

whooleytoo

macrumors 604
Aug 2, 2002
6,607
716
Cork, Ireland.
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
My point was just that Apple keeps their secrets close to the chest, so they don't put people into positions where they know company secrets unless they're trustworthy in the first place.

Actually, that's not really true. ;)

A LOT of people within Apple know company secrets, such as the next generation machine specs and OS features. They have to be built, and they have to be tested so there's no way of preventing a lot of people from finding out - regardless of how trustworthy they are.

The only things that can really be kept secret are the finished look 'n' feel (until someone at the external manufacturers leaks!), prices and exact release dates, and projects like the iPod which don't require as much testing.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
stingerman:

The 970 already does have 3 processor to processor interconnects.
Eh? Since when? Last I heard, everything including cache coherency info travelled on the FSB, and there was no other link. Why don't you provide a source for your claim?

I doubt the 980's will have on-board memory controllers. But if they do all the better, however it isn't that important for the G5's. Why? Because the flexible bus (bus slewing) more than makes up for the additional latency. The processor at 3GHz will have a 1.5GHz FSB with RAM still peaking between 800 and 1000 Mhz. If you build the memory controller on the processor than every time AMD wants to use the latest faster memory they have to redesign the processor portion to handle it and do a new run, instead of just changing the south bridge. So there are trade-offs to either approach, but the latency issue is not a factor now and will be less so as the FSB continues to increase. For AMD it is more of a one-up on Intel.
You are very much wrong. No FSB-based system can ever compete with an on-die memory controller of similar bandwidth, doesn't matter how fast the FSB is clocked. Signals have been travelling as fast as possible more-or-less forever, and so the limiting factor is how far the signals have to travel, and with on-die memory controllers that distance is far shorter, so the data is returned much faster. FSB systems can compete in streaming applications, where data is flowing in predictable ways, but as soon as data needs to come from random places in RAM, then all that matters is how fast it can be accessed. Increasing the clock of the RAM and the FSB will do little or nothing to address this.

IBM Germany has achieved 2.8GHz on the 970 back in February 2003 in the labs.. Hello.
Based on a rumor, or is did IBM officially claim this?

The 980 was in development in parallel with the 970.
A rumor, or is it guesswork?

But let me tell you a secret: The G5 at 130nm generates less heat than the Opteron. So let your imagination on what areas Apple can put a 90nm G5, besides up the b*tt of these Wintel trolls. LOL.
Prove it. And don't give me IBM's "typical" power use figures, find me the peak power use numbers. Then do the same for AMD.

wizard:

Very nice summation stingerman.
Looks to me like all he did was dish out ignorance. But what wonderful pro-Mac ignorance it was. ;)

Maybe the non believers will take another look at the world outside of Apple.
Do yourself a favor and try not to describe your relation with Macs in the same words as one would use for a cult.
 

-hh

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2001
2,550
336
NJ Highlands, Earth
Originally posted by macshark
Here is my best guesses for what will be annoucned in Jan 2004:

PowerMac:
1. 2.4GHz G5 based on 90nm PPC970 with 800MHz bus (90% confidence)...

XServe:
1. 2.0GHz G5 based on 90nm PPC970 with 1GHz bus (70% confidence)...

Given Apple's past performance in let-downs, I'm really very tempted to say that January will bring nothing. :D

But I'm not quite that cynical at the moment, and my crystal ball's saying that come January, we should get at least the following:

PowerMac:
1. Drops the oddball 1.6GHz's motherboard
2. Product line goes to DP.
3. Minimum Speed: existing 1.8 (but is now DP)
4. Medium: existing 2.0 DP
5. Fast: at least 2.2 DP
6. All chips stay on 130nm process;
7. Overall this is pretty much just a "speedbump" upgrade.
There might be another +200MHz for all of these; depends on your degree of optimizm.

XServe:
1. Of course its gets updated.
2. Two models: SP 1.8GHz and DP "Top Speed" of PowerMac
3. Also stays on 130nm.

iMac:
- Refresh is due & rumored. Will be concurrent with G5 Transition.
- Recipient of the slower 130nm PowerMac chips no longer being used in the PowerMac, thus is probably:
- 1.6 GHz SP G5 for the 15"
- 1.8GHz SP G5 for the 17"

Powerbook:
- probably no changes. If there is a change, it will be to a low-clockspeed 90nm G5 (~1.8GHz) in the 17".


iBook:
- just went to the G4; no changes.

eMac:
- Apple can't afford to get rid of "the cheap Mac".
- Just speedbumped; expect more of same


-Hugh
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Originally posted by ddtlm

Based on a rumor, or is did IBM officially claim this?
he's referring to an IBM Germany press release this past spring where they pre-announced a PPC 970 based blade server. I seem to recall the number they announced was 2.4 or 2.6GHz. IBM never commented on this apparent leak but it remained up for nearly a week before IBM took it down.
It did, however, appear to be an official IBM release.

A rumor, or is it guesswork?
I'm also under the impression that the processors are under parallel developement. IBM pretty much said this flat out at WWDC when they said they were already working on the next generation of this family.
It's also very common to work on multiple generations at once. Intel, IBM, AMD, Sun.. they all work this way. Why do you think chip designers make projected claims about processors that aren't due until 3 years down the line? Intel is talking up Tanglewood like crazy but it won't debut till 2005 or 2006.

Prove it. And don't give me IBM's "typical" power use figures, find me the peak power use numbers. Then do the same for AMD.
IBM and AMD don't use the same criteria to rate their processors so it's difficult to make direct comparisons.
The Athlon XP, at least, has typical power consumptions VERY close to max... as shown here
If this were true of the Opteron (which it may not be), then Typical would likely come in around 80watts.. MUCH higher than the PPC 970's ~50watts at 2GHz. If I find some better figures on typical Opteron waste heat, I'll save the link.

Looks to me like all he did was dish out ignorance. But what wonderful pro-Mac ignorance it was. ;)

I think he had some valid points, he just didn't support them well.
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Originally posted by Telomar
Server speeds will quite frequently be below what you'd see in the desktop market.

Well, there are a few reasons for this...
1) Server chips are often different than desktop chips. They try to sort for reliability (they may actually make them differently, thicker gates). In the case of Intel, the Xeons sport new features first (HT), and they are available with much larger L2 caches (and on die L3 in some cases)
2) Servers don't always need cutting edge performance. many server tasks are MUCH MORE bandwidth dependent (internal and external) then they are cpu dependent. Often server don't need to be as fast per CPU, they can make up for it with large SMP configs. For fileserving, a single G4 xserve will run out of Disk bandwidth long before the processor becomes overtaxed.
3) People expect to pay more for servers so vendors can get away with charging more for server versions of chips (at the same clock point). This probably helps slide the release shedule for new chip speeds as the price points can be filled with slower chips
...
yadda, yadda, and yet more yadda.

:)
 

silvergunuk

macrumors regular
Mar 17, 2003
133
0
England
Mmmmm Niiiice!

Seeing as were all making wild guesses for what we expect at macworld in January, I might aswell do mine :) Hooray!

G5 Towers go to
Dual 2.5 GHZ G5
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5
Dual 2 GHZ G5

Imacs Goto
1.6 GHZ G5 17 inch
1.8 GHZ G5 (get this lol) 19 Incher!

PowerBooks
1.6 GHZ for 12/15.4
1.8 GHZ for 15.4/17

Xserve now changed to Xgrid with 4 2.5 GHZ 970 (yeah took me ages to think this 1 up ;) )

...ok now you can reply to my wild off the wall guesses with 90 nm problems, efficiancy, time frame and the like. Need hot tea!
 

Genie

macrumors 6502a
May 25, 2003
604
0
heaven
Re: Mmmmm Niiiice!

Originally posted by silvergunuk
Seeing as were all making wild guesses for what we expect at macworld in January, I might aswell do mine :) Hooray!

G5 Towers go to
Dual 2.5 GHZ G5
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5
Dual 2 GHZ G5

I guess:
Dual 2.4 GHZ G5
Dual 2 GHZ G5
Single 2 GHZ G5
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
ffakr:

He's referring to an IBM Germany press release this past spring where they pre-announced a PPC 970 based blade server. I seem to recall the number they announced was 2.4 or 2.6GHz. IBM never commented on this apparent leak but it remained up for nearly a week before IBM took it down.
This is not the same thing as having the product ready to go.

I'm also under the impression that the processors are under parallel developement. IBM pretty much said this flat out at WWDC when they said they were already working on the next generation of this family. It's also very common to work on multiple generations at once. Intel, IBM, AMD, Sun.. they all work this way. Why do you think chip designers make projected claims about processors that aren't due until 3 years down the line? Intel is talking up Tanglewood like crazy but it won't debut till 2005 or 2006.
The next generation they speak of could easily be a 970 designed for 90nm, or it could be a "980" that's still more than a year off. Heck, it could be both. They simply don't say.

IBM and AMD don't use the same criteria to rate their processors so it's difficult to make direct comparisons.
AMD tends to tell everyone the worst case heat output, IBM tends to tell people "typical" outputs and keep the worst case a secret between them and companies like Apple. If IBM were straight forward about this there would be no mystery. All they need to do is provide a worst-case heat output.

The Athlon XP, at least, has typical power consumptions VERY close to max
The A64/Opteron use a different process tech, one likely much more compeditive with IBM's.

If this were true of the Opteron (which it may not be), then Typical would likely come in around 80watts.. MUCH higher than the PPC 970's ~50watts at 2GHz. If I find some better figures on typical Opteron waste heat, I'll save the link.
Ah hah, there you've fallen into the trap. That 50W is definately not a worst-case figure, its in fact close to the "typical" number for a 1.8ghz G5. Approx 80W is a worst-case AMD provides for the Opteron family, although they don't say which clockspeeds are capable of generating it. It may well be that no Opteron can generate 80W at this time. (Actually it would be worth checking on that again, maybe they've provided more details since.) The point is, noone (who is talking) knows if a G5 or an Opteron produces less heat. I'm betting they are pretty compeditive, but I don't know either.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Phil Of Mac:

What does that do to refute what I have been saying? The next generation of chip isn't necessarily a "980", heck maybe they were talking about the Power5 itself, or as I've already said, nothing more than a 90nm PPC970 (which maybe they'll call a 980).

To refresh your memory, the original comment to which I objected was:

"The 980 was in development in parallel with the 970."
 

aswitcher

macrumors 603
Oct 8, 2003
5,338
14
Canberra OZ
Does anyone think Apple will ever go bigger than 17" with their powerbooks to try and lead the market again?

Is there a market for 18"+ laptops?

Jason
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Originally posted by ddtlm
Phil Of Mac:

What does that do to refute what I have been saying? The next generation of chip isn't necessarily a "980", heck maybe they were talking about the Power5 itself, or as I've already said, nothing more than a 90nm PPC970 (which maybe they'll call a 980).

To refresh your memory, the original comment to which I objected was:

"The 980 was in development in parallel with the 970."

I think you're desperately trying to argue that IBM isn't working on a 980 right now. Here's the facts that we understand...

1) ALL chip makers work on multiple generations of chips at once. Sun is working on US4, US5,.. IBM is working on Power5, Power6... Intel is working on Prescott, Tejas, Yamhill?? and they are working on several generations of Itanium. This doesn't mean that Intel has Tanglewood silicon but they are working on it already. It would be impossible to generate a forward looking roadmap without parallel but staggared development.
2) IBM has said they are working on the next generation of PowerPC. Do you REALLY think that the next generation is the same chip with a die shrink? Come on. Has Apple ever called a shrunk chip a new generation? Motorola and IBM have made significant changes to past PPC chips and they haven't called them different generations of Power PC processors... just revisions.
3) IBM has said, many times, that they will be supporting the PowerPC for Apple for years to come. Even without saying there is a 980 working, promising several years of development ensures new processors and new processors means they will be developing them in parallel.
4) Even if IBM chooses to simply split off a 'lite' version of the Powers instead of evolving the 9x0 line, then as they are working on several generations of Power processors (which they are), they are also making considerations for the 'lite' processors.

The A64/Opteron use a different process tech, one likely much more compeditive with IBM's.
...
Ah hah, there you've fallen into the trap. That 50W is definately not a worst-case figure, its in fact close to the "typical" number for a 1.8ghz G5. Approx 80W is a worst-case AMD provides for the Opteron family, although they don't say which clockspeeds are capable of generating it. It may well be that no Opteron can generate 80W at this time. (Actually it would be worth checking on that again, maybe they've provided more details since.) The point is, noone (who is talking) knows if a G5 or an Opteron produces less heat. I'm betting they are pretty compeditive, but I don't know either.
first off, why is the A64 process so different than previous Athlons? Architecture wise, Athlon64 is an extension of the Athlon. Process wise, the Athlon is made on a .13 micron copper process just like Athlon 64. Athlon64 uses SOI which Athlon doesn't. SOI does lower heat, but I don't know what affect it has on the difference between typical and max output.

Now, what trap did I fall into?
I NEVER said the ~50 watts for a 970 was max. I simply stated that the link I posted indicated that the typical wattage for an Athlon was very close to the Max wattage. If typical an max were generally close on processors like the Opteron too (which is similar), then you'd expect the typical wattage of the Opteron would be nearly 80 watts.
But wait, I've done better... A list of Opteron max and typical wattage. Link to wattage
Go figure, apparently the typical wattage for the Opteron is in fact around 80 watts if this person has their facts correct.

Looks like I know an Opteron produces more heat than a G5... and I'm talking. :)
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Originally posted by aswitcher
Does anyone think Apple will ever go bigger than 17" with their powerbooks to try and lead the market again?

Is there a market for 18"+ laptops?

Jason
Most people I know (me included) think the 17" is too big. It's really a desktop replacement, but it's kind of unwieldly to carry around.
I'd like one only because I don't walk around with a laptop case, I use my iBook on the couch. For all around use though, I'd prefer a 15" laptop. Lighter, cheaper, big enough... and I can hook a monitor bigger than 17" up to it if I really want.

jmho.
ffakr.
 

Jagga

macrumors member
Jul 14, 2003
51
0
hamilton
Ideas..

I got some statements - although I could be wrong, and some ideas.

First off with the info listing FSB multipliers up to 4x was hinting on what WASN't mentioned. ddtlm touched on it ->hyperconnects for multiprocessors on mobos. Its no secret IBM not only got $$ but experience in lending their experience in helping AMD fabricate SOI Athlon64's. We also know that AMD holds most of the research & development rights to HyperTransport, hence their ability to incorporate memory controllers on-die and hyperinterconnects for CPU & memory controllers to run at parallel speeds to one another. (1600Mhz FSB people).

I hope that the new G5s in Feb PowerMacs have gone up to 2.5Ghz along with 2MB of L2 cache. Also I think that we might see a PowerBook G5 by October 2004 - my statement - because if AMD can have a system built using dual Opteron 244s with less than 6 fans @ 130nm fabrication its because they don't generate much heat because of the Hyperinterconnects.

Also Apple may delay the Xserve so that they can goto 4 G5s internally to better appeal to the server crowd (think Xgrids success with supercomputer PowerMacs). At 90nm I believe this will be feasible along with single 1.8Ghz PowerBook G5s @ 90nm fabs hopefully the later with 1MB L2 cache.

Furthermore Apple may release a 25th Anniversary Mac! I expect no less than SATA HD, OLED screen - stunning, LOTS of DDR RAM, AirExtreme, maybe an imbedded dock for iPod, maybe 3D glasses, all in an ultra sexy silver star clothing. Something fitting for Batman to use once again.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.