Freescale Confirms Dual Core G4

[ompus]

Here are my slightly different predictions. Upon the release of the 7448 (say May 2005, the line-up will move to:

eMac: 1.5 Ghz G4, 167 Mhz FSB (7447A)
iBook: 1.2-1.5 Ghz G4, 167 Mhz FSB. (7447A)
PowerBook: 1.4-1.8 Ghz G4, 200 Mhz FSB. (7448)​

Now...this wouldn't blow anyone away, but 20% increases in clock speed, coupled with 20% increases in FSB speeds-without any increase in power consumption-would certainly be appreciated...in the short term.

That sets the stage for the release of the 8641D or a low-power version of the G5 (say November 2005).

eMac: 1.8 Ghz G4, 200 Mhz FSB. (7448)
iBook: 1.4-1.8 Ghz G4, 200 Mhz FSB. (7448)
PowerBook: G4 (8641D ) or G5.​

 

[Elan0204]

It seems like dual core G4s could keep te PowerBooks running along nicely for a long while without a G5. I also think dual core versus single core G4s will add some much needed differentiation between the iBook and PowerBook. At this time, I think they are way too similar.

However, might a similarly clocked dual core G4 be faster than a single G5? Would Apple be happy with PowerBooks being faster than the iMac? Maybe, since the PowerBook is supposed to be a pro machine whereas the iMac is consumer level. Going dual core in the PowerBooks also would mean that Apple could never go back to single processor PowerMacs, and I don't know if they would want to put themselves in that position.

 

[iMeowbot]

Can someone explain dual core to a dummy?

It's two complete CPUs on one chip, plus some multiprocessing glue.

 

[devman]

Actually, the Virtual Memory system is 32-bit - a process cannot see more than 4 GiB of Virtual Memory.

The Physical Memory system is more than 32-bit (but less than 64-bit) - which is why you can install and use more than 4 GiB of Physical Memory.

The 32-bit Pentiums have a 36-bit physical address space, and can support up to 64 GiB of RAM on a purely 32-bit processor. Panther isn't doing anything more than this - supporting more than 4 GiB on a standard 32-bit vm system.

Yeah, I wasn't clear there. The G5 has a 64-bit virtual and 42-bit physical address range.

A process today can't make use of 4GB anyway. The address space is fragmented. Quoting Apple Developer Technical Support:

"Of the 32-bit memory space only about 2 GB are available:

0x00000000 to 0x3FFFFFFF and 0xB0000000 to 0xEBFFFFFF

You application and any third-party dylibs's are allocated out of this
space."

See http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/LaunchTime/Tasks/Prebinding.html

 

[The Red Wolf]

You're making an assumption. The page you referenced doesn't say what you want it to say.

The vm subsystem can address more than 4GB today... (pop quiz: what's the max memory on a powermac today?)

Remember this old post?

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/1035784/

I do remember the post. Also, G5 tower, 8GB of RAM.

What you did not read in my post on page 4 of this topic, (not to mention the one that spawned the reference you placed in your post) is the fact that that the "Tiger Preview" page doesn't disclose all the information to be reader friendly.

Apple would not state it will have a 64-bit OS in 2005 before M$ if it was not working toward yesterdays post of an upcoming 2005 Tiger release. Rather than posting acronym and fly words, I post with a bit of humor and in a way everyone can understand. The above mentioned post you referred to used the exact analogy I did to further explain how the kernel in Tiger works.

Just as the kernel can give or deny memory to an application that is running. It can adjust to what application is being used or processor it has to deal with on the machine its installed on. Versatility. But the main point I have made and will forever stand by, Tiger is a versatile system. Meaning capable of doing processes in both 64-bit and 32-bit, sometimes at the same time depending on what you're doing.

The comment which I responded to this morning read was much like "G5s or whatever they call them will never be 64-bit processors, not for a long time".

More to the point of this thread. Is a Dual core G4 better than a singer G5? Depends on how it can "Shift". I even stated that was a poor analogy. But it remains, Tiger is much like a processor that could "shift" between being a G4 and a G5 depending on what machine you install it in. So then, if I am wrong. What on earth is Tiger doing when it "upshifts" to 64-bit application processes? How is it even doing it without having the abilities of a 64-bit enabled kernel?

Why again as I have mentioned before, would the Tiger be on the other side of the 64-Bit computing gap? With Panther leaping that gap, but not there yet and Longhorn sort of scared of the edge? Lay terms. But poignant compared to the pages and pages of documentation about this topic. Its at the Apple Developer Connection, I encourage people truly interested to check it out. http://developer.apple.com/macosx/

 

[itsa]

Why?

Because you're not gonna see a PB G5 for a long time still. If they release an interim G4 update before the G5 it will be the fastest thing available, just as the current crop is the current fastest. How is getting the fastest current processor "being left behind?"

I hear your arguement that a G5 is the future of the Mac platform, but that doesn't mean it's integration into a laptop is any more likely than it was at the introduction of the G5 over 15 months ago.

With my work, EVERYTHING is on the go. Is it too much to ask for a portable Desktop? Yes, I want everything in a desktop, jam packed into a notebook. That's the most wonderful thing about a notebook.
I would feel left behind when you put it up next to a G5.
Don't get me wrong... I will have what ever is the best offered. My job demands that. I do however wonder about furture updates of pro apps not supporting G4's. I'm sure that's a long way off.... not!

 

[nutmac]

Competition = good

While I am the last person to support Freescale/Motorola (after Motorola's G4 fiasco, I am "I will believe when I see it" when it comes to G4 hype), I am glad Freescale is around. If anything, Freescale keeps IBM at its toe, much like how AMD is driving Intel to work harder to produce better and cheaper CPUs.

That said, I don't care who makes the "next generation" CPU for PowerBook as long as both the performance and battery life are on par with what Wintel consumers get with Pentium-M notebooks. As it stands, PowerBooks lag behind big-time.

 

[shamino]

Can someone explain dual core to a dummy?

Although the specific details are a bit complicated, the concept is simple. A dual-core processor is two CPUs in a single processor module.

They can be configured in several different ways, but the approach we expect Apple to take will be for the module behave as two distinct processors sharing memory with an SMP-like architecture, in much the same fashion that the two processors on existing dual-processor systems share memory.

In other words, a computer based on one dual-core module will be equivalent to a traditional dual-processor computer. And a computer with two dual-core modules will be equivalent to a traditional computer with 4-way multiprocessing.

You may now be asking "why do this when I can just use two or four off-the-shelf single-core processors?" The answer is simple - they take up less space (they may be bigger than single-core modules, but they won't be as large as two separate modules) and (probably) use less power. So you can pack more processors onto the same size motherboard.

Assuming the physical size doesn't increase too much, a dual-core G4 will allow existing G4 systems (eMacs, iBooks and PowerBooks) to go dual-processor. (This would be impossible with current tech, because these systems are crowded and have no room to add a second processor module.)

Similarly, a dual-core G5 will allow the iMac/G5 to go dual-processor. And a PowerMac could support two dual-core G5's - resulting in 4-way multiprocessing.

 

[nutmac]

Joe, you obviously have not personally seen the iMac G5. Because if you had, you would understand the size difference between the 17" version and the 17" PowerBook. While the iMac G5 is impressively compact (when compared to other desktop computers), it weighs 18.5 pounds versus a mere 6.9 lbs for the it's 17" PowerBook counterpart, roughly three times the computer. In short, it's wwwaaaaayyyy bigger. Not even close to the PowerBook.

While you are at it, don't forget the battery.

I don't think weight was a major factor for iMac's design team, however. And even size for that matter. iMac G5 is reasonably invisible and I don't think the team's goal was "make it smaller and smaller." Make it look like iPod, squeeze in G5, and get rid of the round base.

The PowerBook G5 team will be a lot more aggressive in getting both the size and weight down, and use the most advanced heat transfer technologies available -- all the while waiting for IBM to deliver mobile G5 that they can use.

Although dual-core G4 will be a nice interim solution, the fact is, we need 64-bit sooner or later. If not for more elegant and modern architecture that G5 brings, for larger phyiscal memory space. Power mobile users will want larger pool of physical memory very soon.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Can someone explain dual core to a dummy?

dual core = essentially 2 processors on 1 chip. This is just the dumbed down version of the explaination i guess.

 

[ajb13]

G4 vs G5. Some don't have a clue...

im not getting a computer with a g4 in it. g5 has been on the market for more than a year its the way to go

I'm rather suprised by this statement. Just because Apple has chosen to call each incremental update to processor and machine Gx, does not mean that a G5 is better than a G4. For heavens sakes, the technology is different, and the on-chip features of the e600 based G4's is awesome! G5 doesn't have any of this. Multi-cores are the future, not the G5. The G5 is just another branch of processor development. SGI is creating Dual cores, Intel is going Dual core, IBM's power 5 is Dual core. Do you see where I'm going with this? Just because the chip is called something with a higher number, doesn't make it better.

If Seymour Cray was on this list he'd be laughing. He understands how computers should work...multiple processors in parallel. Massively more powerful than megahertz. So, the next logical step is multiple cores in parallel. Naming means nothing, it's the tech behind the name that makes the difference.

 

[kenaustus]

I'm more than willing to give Freescale a chance to prove themselves. I think Moto has spun them off in order to sell the division down the line and is pumping them to perform - finally.

I would not be surprised to see a Freescale running about 1.5 for the iBook and eMac - and in the fairly near future. The Cram & Jam promotion was a great way to bring down inventories so look for something good happening before too long.

A Freescale at 2.0 would kick the PB into gear now and the dual processor would provide another kick when it comes out - especially if it is faster than 2 gigs. It would probably be the hottest notebook on the market.

The key points with Freescale will be performance and price. If they are aggressive in both areas then they may do very well indeed.

 

[shamino]

However, might a similarly clocked dual core G4 be faster than a single G5?

It absolutely would be faster.

A 64-bit chip and a 32-bit chip (of compatible architectures, of course) running at the clock speed running the same (32-bit) software will perform similarly.

So you can bet that if you change one of these two to dual-core without changing the other, the dual-core chip will outperform the single-core chip.

Would Apple be happy with PowerBooks being faster than the iMac? Maybe, since the PowerBook is supposed to be a pro machine whereas the iMac is consumer level.

I would tend to agree here.

Keep in mind that Apple could also make iMacs with dual-core G4 processors. They probably wouldn't, since they're using 64-bitness as a selling point, but if the resulting computer runs apps faster, I'm sure they could market their way out of that corner.

Going dual core in the PowerBooks also would mean that Apple could never go back to single processor PowerMacs, and I don't know if they would want to put themselves in that position.

I don't think this is a real limit.

Customers usually concern themselves with application performance. Moving from dual-core to single-core in a future model would not mean much as long as the replacement chip is fast enough so that overall application performance improves.

Look at the PowerMac/G4 series. At one point, all three models sold at once were dual-processor. Then later on, they changed this plan and only the high-end one was dual-processor. Today, all three PM/G5s are dual-processor. And in the next generation, we might find the low-end one going back to single-processor.

If Apple releases a dual-core PowerBook, you will probably see something similar. With dual-core being used in the high-end model, and single-core in the others. And over time, maybe the lower-end ones will go dual-core, and maybe not.

Finally, it is worth remembering, that IBM has dual-core G5's (the PPC 970MP) on the roadmap for the near future. If Apple upgrades the iMac and PowerMac to dual-core at the same time they upgrade the Powerbook, all of your concerns will be moot. When the PB's finally go G5, they'll move from one dual-core chip to another dual-core chip and everyone will be happy.

 

[Dave K]

I really don't understand this discussion. Freescale/Motorolla DO NOT have a 90nm fabrication facility.

Not required. They can simply do what any other fabless company does and outsource the work.

 

[shamino]

While you are at it, don't forget the battery.

But if you were to turn an iMac into a portable, you'd remove the AC power supply, which probably weighs more than a battery pack.

I don't think weight was a major factor for iMac's design team, however.

Of course not. When was the last time weight was a concern of yours when buying a desktop system?

Although dual-core G4 will be a nice interim solution, the fact is, we need 64-bit sooner or later. If not for more elegant and modern architecture that G5 brings, for larger phyiscal memory space. Power mobile users will want larger pool of physical memory very soon.

"Sooner or later" is a rather vague term. Right now, there is no consumer need for this kind of memory. Maybe this will change in 2-3 years. But a lot of eveyrthing else will change by then as well.

The only people who need huge amounts of memory "very soon" (meaning "now") are those doing video production. I really doubt these companies are going to migrate their render farms to laptops.

 

[Lancetx]

I think this is great news and I certainly don't think that the G4 is dead yet. It's still a very serviceable processor as long as it continues to evolve and see measurable speed increases. Since everyone (including Intel) is hitting the wall due to cooling issues when it comes to putting desktop processors into notebooks, I'm not going to be upset at Apple for not having a G5 PowerBook. I'd much rather have a fast, thin and cool running PowerBook G4 than a 2 inch thick G5 nuclear reactor book any day of the week. I have faith that in time Apple and IBM will come up with something comparable to the desktop G5 for the PowerBook line (i.e. something like this news story), but in the meantime, I'm content with what they're doing. Besides, it's not like the new iMac G5s are exactly blowing the doors off of the PowerBook G4s of today anyway. And if pure speed is what is truly needed, the Dual Processor Power Mac G5 is the only way to go anyhow as no notebook will ever come close to keeping pace there anyway.

 

[dieselg4]

OK. I don't know the specific specs and haven't seen how the architecture is laid out but dual core on a 200Mhz FSB?!?! Are they insane? Can you say bandwidth starved? If this does somehow make it into a PowerBook here's hoping the memory controller is onboard as well or things are going to get really ugly.

I believe the dual cores have a 667 mhz bus

 

[JFreak]

dual-core G4 should be faster than single-core G5 with the same clock speed, even if the fsb of the G5 would be multiple times faster than the G4. and dual-core G4 should be as fast as dual-G5 if the fsb were equal.

remember, the G4 is faster clock-for-clock and is only crippled with slow fsb...

 

[dieselg4]

It's two complete CPUs on one chip, plus some multiprocessing glue.

I think (and I might be wrong) that a dual core CPU doesn't need dual precessor capable software to utilize both cores.

 

[dieselg4]

I'd much rather have a fast, thin and cool running PowerBook G4 than a 2 inch thick G5 nuclear reactor book any day of the week.

Good point. You only need to take a look at Dell's Inspiron 9100 to get an idea of what a 970 laptop might begin to look like . . (in size, weight, etc.) Check out the dim's - 2" inches! & 9 Pounds!

 

[appleface]

in a desktop?!

I would not be surprised to see a Freescale running about 1.5 for the iBook and eMac - and in the fairly near future.

would this freescale processor really be better than a G5? i thought the advantage of this freescale chip is that it is easy on power consumption. an emac doesn't need to worry about power consumption, does it? is this new chip a true canidate for anything other than notebooks?

 

[dieselg4]

would this freescale processor really be better than a G5? i thought the advantage of this freescale chip is that it is easy on power consumption. an emac doesn't need to worry about power consumption, does it? is this new chip a true canidate for anything other than notebooks?

If its faster, cheaper, and cooler, why not have a fanless, faster eMac?

 

[budugu]

It simply means they are not optimized!!

if those chips come with that amount of L2 cache... I would expect something similar/equal from IBM... 512K is oldschool

The larger L2 / L3 cache are added to alleviate the performance changes when they try to change the design! ofcourse a larger cache is always good. but it is generally offered by companies when they are playing with new stuff and trying to finish of the old stuff (3->4->5 etc). Cache increases are generally seen when are about to be phased out. And the new ones come with a lower cache in th next release!! I remember Power4 of IBM had 1-2MB cache!

 

[AmigoMac]

Now let's hope Virtual PC 8 will work with the new chip...

 

[Neuro]

Looking at the recent iMac G5 benchmarks, a dual G4 tower has similar performance to the best new iMac, so a new, faster dual-core G4 chip would be great (and perhaps more practical) for PowerBooks etc. The current high-end PowerBook with Radeon 9700 Mobility seems better than an iMac G5 for gaming so far...

The G4 is actually a very nice chip - it just didn't get fast enough quick enough. Maybe its about to make a comeback?