MikeBike said:Where do you pull this piece of info out of?
- I've never seen Ibm claim that. If that were true wouldn't a G5 be out now!
- The G5 might appear when IBM completes it's 65nm process. And even then if it's too hot or the heat is too concentrated it might not make it into a laptop.
- The Freescale chip is only going to be at 90nm, and be cooler.
- Fourth, the G5 Needs to run a couple tenth's of Ghz higher( .2 or .3 higher ) then a G4 to equal it's performance.
- If that wattage is a figure from a lightly loaded G5, ie. a PowerManagement type spec. then that won't help me as I keep my machine very busy.
- A dual core G4 is effectively a Heat-Spreader, and a better implementation of powermanagement could simply switch between the cpu's to keep things cooler, on a greater surface area.
- Have you heard of any road maps from AMD or Intel? The future is Dual-Core.
1. IBM PDF
That doc is nearly a year old. 970FX stated to consume 12.3W @ 1.4GHz and 24.5W @ 2.0Ghz. I'd say that's comfy for a powerbook. (Apple's G5 system controller is probably another matter!) Jesus, these numbers are similar to the G3!!!
2. & 3. The 970FX is a 90nm part with almost identical power consumption to the 7448 and 8461s from Freescale.
4. I don't see how you can believe that when the G4 sits there starving at it's 167MHz bus. Barefeats benchmarks don't seem to bear this out either: http://www.barefeats.com/pvp.html The G5 shows quite a bit faster clock for clock in most tests here.
5. All power consumption claims are best-case scenario: i.e. light load, ideal situations. This is true for Moto....er Freescale's 8461 claims as well as IBMs.
6. The cpus are not the heat problems. Pay attention. The 970s are cooler than the 450Mhz G4 in my cube (and many Moto chips used in powerbooks.) As are the current 7447s in powerbooks. So again, cpus don't seem to be the problem here...apple's controller IS the problem.
7. Have you heard of any roadmaps from IBM? oh, wait, you don't need a roadmap, the POWER5 is a shipping part...and it's dual-core. Oh, wait, so is the at least three year old POWER4 that the 970 is based on. So I think that when apple wants a dual-core part IBM can probably provide it.
and, for the not-asked question eight:
I'll wait for WWDC to decide if I think Apple is announcing a G5 powerbook. Heck, I'd be HAPPY if we saw a dual-core 8461 in powerbooks although I don't see how it's remotely possible before WWDC 2006. Anything with a system bus faster than 167MHz and DDR support would have me jumping up and down while ordering one gleefully from the Apple Store. But I get tired of people parroting the same unresearched info as if it's the gospel truth or saying that the digitimes article is a typo when it's clearly not as you can tell if you simply looked at the article. It could easily be TOTALLY WRONG, but it ain't a typo. If your article got this much attention, and there was a wicked bad typo causing it, wouldn't you correct the typo? I would. Also the Ars Technica article is skeptical but admits the possibility and doesn't claim it's a typo at any point. The ars technica guy does interpret iBook/iBook G5 to mean both at once whereas the logical thing to me would be iBook (g4) then a switch to iBook G5 when apple is satisfied that the powerbook G5 has taken hold. Then again, maybe apple will never release another notebook. I won't know until it happens.