Is the G4 still under 3 GHz? Coming up 2 years when the promise was 1 year. What chip is going to get us there and beyond?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CELL CHIP?? Big news for apple?
- Thread starter burger011
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple WILL use the CELL Chip.
If a $300 Playstation 3 can have 2 Cell Chips in it, then the Cell Chip is a hell of a lot cheaper than a G5 CPU. It is essentially a G5 on Steriods since it has 8 Altivec or similar units. It also uses up 30 watts - low enough for Powerbooks and air-cooled PlayStation 3s. Given the huge demand for the Cell chips as it is incorporated into all sorts of Consumer gadgets, I can't believe that Apple won't take advantage of it.
With the Cell Chip (AKA PowerPC on Steriods), Apple has a fast CPU which will be much less expensive than current Intel CPUS. Apple can also use 2 to 8 of them easily in one desktop.
If anything, the someone has to write programs for the Cell CPUs. The Japanese are poor computer programmers - thus it will be an American Company that will do the programming. Since the Cell is a PowerPC Variant, the Mac OS X is a natural platform for programming the Cell. You will be able to write Playstation 3 games on the Mac just as you will be able to program X-Box 2 games on the Mac (The X-Box 2 uses PowerPC chips).
If a $300 Playstation 3 can have 2 Cell Chips in it, then the Cell Chip is a hell of a lot cheaper than a G5 CPU. It is essentially a G5 on Steriods since it has 8 Altivec or similar units. It also uses up 30 watts - low enough for Powerbooks and air-cooled PlayStation 3s. Given the huge demand for the Cell chips as it is incorporated into all sorts of Consumer gadgets, I can't believe that Apple won't take advantage of it.
With the Cell Chip (AKA PowerPC on Steriods), Apple has a fast CPU which will be much less expensive than current Intel CPUS. Apple can also use 2 to 8 of them easily in one desktop.
If anything, the someone has to write programs for the Cell CPUs. The Japanese are poor computer programmers - thus it will be an American Company that will do the programming. Since the Cell is a PowerPC Variant, the Mac OS X is a natural platform for programming the Cell. You will be able to write Playstation 3 games on the Mac just as you will be able to program X-Box 2 games on the Mac (The X-Box 2 uses PowerPC chips).
GFLPraxis said:
It depends. The OS or the app itself could handle distributing workload across both cores, but it's not always possible to utilize both cores in parallel. For example, iMovie is not optimized for dual processors, so it runs essentially at the same speed on a single 1.8 GHz PowerMac as it does on a dual 1.8 Ghz PowerMac (only one processor is being used).
Final Cut Pro is dual processor aware, so most operations would get distributed over both processors. So renders will run much faster on the dual 1.8 Ghz.
Dual processors are also great when running multiple apps. So just running iMovie on a dual won't be any faster than on a single, but if you were running iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, and GarageBand, even though none of these apps are multiprocessor-aware, OS X would step in an manage how the apps run. So OS X might decided to run iMovie, iTunes, iDVD, and iPhoto on Processor 1 and dedicate Processor 2 for GarageBand.
With dual core designs, instead of having two separate, discrete chips, chip designers decided to sequeeze two chips into the space of one. (Note quite, since you actually don't have two of everything). But the OS will see a dual core chip as two separate chips.
Both Intel and AMD are aggressively working on dual-core designs, i.e. two Pentiums for the price of one! IBM hasn't said very much about dual core plans for the PowerPC.
To make it even more confusing, the Cell's PowerPC core is NOT dual core (just one core, remember), but it's multi-threaded capable of running two threads simultaneously. This appears to be similar to the HyperThreading that P4 chips have. Multi-threading makes the chip "virtually" seem like two discrete chips to the OS. So a dual core Pentium with HyperThreading will look like four chips to the OS. Multi-threading isn't nearly as efficient as having multiple cores, but it does allow the chip's power to be much better utilized.
But you're right...if Apple decides to adopt the Cell, then I'm sure some kind of emulation will come into play. But again, not unprecedented - Apple emulated an entire 68020 instruction set in the PowerPC 601's cache, thereby allowing emulated apps to run as fast as (or even faster) than the fastest 68040 Macs of the day.
Marianco said:
I may be wrong, but I think it means that the PS3 has two of the Cell APU's in one chip.
The XBox 2 is supposed to have a two-core G5 btw.
Yes, except the XBox 2 runs a Windows NT kernel IIRC with DirectX, so really, XBox 2 games will just be Windows games recompiled for PowerPC.
GFLPraxis said:
Actually, this is where we should turn down the hype. Remember, a Cell processor is 10x faster for certain types of operations. Like rendering photorealistic, 3D scenes for games like Doom 3 or rendering Toy Story 2 in real time.
The Cell almost certainly will not make VirtualPC 10x faster, even if Apple got OS X to run on it natively. The vast majority (probably 95%+) of the code in Virtual PC would utilize the single PowerPC core, and not utilize any of the 8 SPEs at all. Even FPU operations in VirtualPC are emulated, and don't touch the G5s FPU at all.
Realistically, the PowerPC core will be at most twice as fast as a 2.0 GHz G5 - almost all of it from the 4 GHz clock speed. With the multi-threaded design, you may see about 30% additional performance (depending on the app), but that's about it.
So VPC will be twice as fast realistically on a Cell Mac.
But yes, I would have to agree on the point that VPC will need to be 10x faster than it is on a dual 2.5 Ghz PowerMac to make the Cell Mac the perfect, no compromise machines for the Switcher.
Marianco said:
First of all, I don't believe Sony has announced a price tag for the PS3. Secondly, I don't think Sony has released any kind of detailed specs for the PS3 - they certainly have not said the PS3 will utilize two Cell chips. It's possible, but it's just speculation at this point.
My guess is that PS3 will come in at $399, or more. Just based on die size, it's a heckuva expensive chip. At this point, I think the Cell will be a far more expensive chip than the G5. Even at $399, I would bet that Sony will be selling at a loss for quite a while.
ADDENDUM: From IBM's website, it appears that the die size of the 970FX is just 65 mm square. The Cell is 221 mm square. All things being relatively equal in fab costs, the Cell will cost about 3.4 times more to produce than the G5s chips you find in the current PowerMacs.
MrMacman said:
*ahem* It IS a PowerPC Chip, and it's first run is 4.6GHz In fact, the 8 SPU's (cores) are controlled by a PowerPC POWER core that is not only a 64bit PowerPC, but has full AltiVec support.
Coverage of the press release from Sony:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/10207791.html
... and here ...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050207/cell_processor_5.html
... and if anyone is worried about it being vaporware, here's the chip lithography:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=38754
Of note: IBM is going to sell workstations based on the chip. It doesn't take a leap of faith to realize that since this _is_ a Power 64bit PowerPC CPU, that Apple _could_ use it. I'm not saying the will, of course, but it certainly makes sense.
vitaboy said:
Don't forget the extra cost of the Rambus RAM...
HOWEVER, different Cell chips have different numbers of APUs.
It's very possible that the PS3 will use a lower clocked PU (the PowerPC core) and only 2 APU's instead of 8 to make it cheaper. So the Cell that goes in the PS3 might be a lot cheaper to produce than the high end ones.
vitaboy said:
Much speculation to this point exists, but not many people believe it'll be over $400. I think your estimation of $399 is spot-on.
That's a bad comparison because die size is not the only factor in chip production cost. A better comparison for Cell are graphics cards.
For example, the nVidia 6800 graphics chip is 270mm. That's bigger than Cell (roughly 22% bigger.) The 6800 has 222 million transistors. Obviously there's still an issue of price and volume-- but that works to Cell's advantage. Cell will be in a LOT of mass produced products and this will bring the cost-per-chip down because of volume. In addition, Cell will be released at 65nm in the not-too-distant future, which will reduce the die size.
I think it's got a lot of promise.
Frobozz said:
Here's a question. Could the Cell theoretically replace the graphics card? If it's so good with media, could OS X be modified to use Cell for OpenGL and all 3d calculations, meaning that Apple can remove the graphics card to make up for the extra cost of the cell processor?
Or is a dedicated graphics card still necessary?
(I know a considerable amount about processors, but not enough about GPUs)
SiliconAddict said:Which begs the question is this the CPU that will be powering Mac OS 11?
The time frame could be right?Another 4-5 years down the road. The question is does the G5 have long enough legs to take Apple that far. Since there is now talk of dual core my _guess_ is yes.
When is the "Cell" cpu to be in new computer's and how long will the G5 live (wondering of getting a G5
)
Another thought.
If this new chip is going to be incorporated into Apple products, we can safely assume it'll happen by mid 2006. The reason being that microsoft will be shipping longhorn around that period, so alot of people will be upgrading their pcs to run it, but if Apple come along with a macmini for $400 running a cell and OS Tiger, customers will think twice before upgrading to a new intel or amd pc.
If this new chip is going to be incorporated into Apple products, we can safely assume it'll happen by mid 2006. The reason being that microsoft will be shipping longhorn around that period, so alot of people will be upgrading their pcs to run it, but if Apple come along with a macmini for $400 running a cell and OS Tiger, customers will think twice before upgrading to a new intel or amd pc.
Maybe...it all depends on the Cell's design. If the Cell wasn't meant to be used in this way, then such an approach obviously won't work. If the PPC core can be used independently of the vector processing units, then doing what you suggested would be the perfect way to put a Cell based CPU in a Mac.GFLPraxis said:
silvergunuk said:
Don't think that it is going to happen
becasue: They have already "made" OS X Tiger and to port it to the cell it need re-writing.
But if it does happen then a lot of people will at least have a closer look at apple before buying their next PC
(if not hope for the wintel people that longhorn will be a whole lot better than XP but not likely )
Isnt the cell based on a power pc core with extra vector units? if so it wouldnt be too hard to incorporate into a tiger update would it? im not very technical so it's all a wonder to me.
AlanAudio said:
Ermm...the emulation excitement was more of a 32bit v 16bit (or was it the 8 v 16?? I forget) question rather than RISC v CISC. The pre-PPC moto chips were also RISC. And the emulation DID play out exactly as anticipated...only they weren't talking about emulating x86 PCs, they were talking about emulating the older moto chips so everything was automagically backward compatible. And it worked perfectly. The PPC macs running the Mac OS in emulation were faster than the previous chips running natively. This is detailed somewhat in Insanely Great
Sony lose money on the console and there is already talk of more expensive games coming when the new consoles are released. Anywhere from a $5 to a $20 increase from what they are now.
And then there are all of the new peripherals to add which will help them recoup their loss on the console. If you're not dead set on being a first adopter, you could wait a year and get a really good price on a new console and have some second hand games available for purchase.
And then there are all of the new peripherals to add which will help them recoup their loss on the console. If you're not dead set on being a first adopter, you could wait a year and get a really good price on a new console and have some second hand games available for purchase.
vitaboy said:
From what I understood from IBM's press release last year, was that the Cell was setup to use whatever cores you wanted. The version being presented at ISSCC is just the version that Sony needs. For instance, if you needed 4 fpus and 2 gpu's and 2 vector units, you could have that configuration. The Cell would still have the ppc core for the 'traffic cop', and would effectively look like a ppc chip with fpu, gpu, and vector instructions added to it. Remember, this is a System on a Chip (SoC) setup, and different rules apply verus being a standard cpu setup.
I don't get it...
Cell... Power Architecture
970... Power Architecture
What is this porting of OSX that everyone keeps talking about? The base instruction sets for both chips are the same. If anything, the process scheduler in OSX might need tweaked, but I doubt that this is a huge hurdle for Apple, Especially since OSX is based on Next, which in itself had proven to be incredibly portable...
Am I missing something?
Max.
Cell... Power Architecture
970... Power Architecture
What is this porting of OSX that everyone keeps talking about? The base instruction sets for both chips are the same. If anything, the process scheduler in OSX might need tweaked, but I doubt that this is a huge hurdle for Apple, Especially since OSX is based on Next, which in itself had proven to be incredibly portable...
Am I missing something?
Max.
The design of the Cell is certainly radical when compared to the PowerPC 970 and the Pentium 4. It also is supposed to deliver awesome performance when programmed properly. I'd say this dude was right on the money.GrannySmith_G5 said: