Freescale Confirms Dual Core G4

[AidenShaw]

is 38 bigger than 9.5 ??

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!

Hmmm, Pentium 4 and Centrino caches keep getting bigger. In fact, just about every product in http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm shows larger caches in the newest chips.

The POWER4+ has a 9.5 MiB cache, and the POWER5 has a 38 MiB cache.

Somehow the facts don't line up with your claim.

 

[Garissimo]

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

The 7448 is an absolutely perfect interim CPU upgrade for the Powerbook. Faster, cooler, and pin per pin compatible with the 7447a. Throw in a Radeon 9800 mobility in the more spendy 15" and 17" models and you're good to go.

My only question is when? The article says samples won't be ready until Q1 next year. Does Apple get "preferential treatment" with these type of new chips because of volumes or will they have to wait untill 2005 like everyone else?

 

[joeboy_45101]

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.​

Hah!, there is no way apple is going to give the eMac a 1.5Ghz G4 right now, and if you look at the past the iBook G4's have been inheriting the last revision PowerBook G4's processor. I'd also have to say that a year from now we will still see a G4 in the PowerBooks unless you like toting around a 2.5-in. thick notebook.

 

[GregA]

Prolly not, man. the CPU is soldered to the logic board. Unless they make whole board replacements, which isn't impossible, just err... hard to install.

Damn, I'm not sure if that comment goes for upgrading iMacs as well... but I'd say so.

I'd like to think that in a years time I could do a simple performane upgrade - replace my G4 chip in my iMac with something faster including cache to take advantage of it... Then again I did get the original iMac flat screen so my FSB is probably less than 200MHz (167?) so I'm stuck anyway!

 

[GregA]

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!

Hi itsa,

IF Freescale have got it right and it performs well (a big IF since we know so little, really!), and Apple uses it in new machines, then future updates of pro apps will support it - simple as that.

If in a year you could choose between a lighter Freescale based dual core 1.6 G4x laptop, vs a heavier 64bit 2.4 G5 laptop, that perform IDENTICALLY for 32 bit applications (for arguments sake), would you really choose the heavier laptop just to be "G5"?

 

[nutmac]

"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.

Although G4 can address 32-bit physical addressable memory space (for total of 4 GB), operating systems such as Mac OS X can address up to 31-bit (for total of 2 GB). While 2 GB is still plenty for today's consumers (the iBook crowd), it isn't much for some pro users of today and many pro users of near-tomorrow (the PowerBook crowd). Yes, I know that many consumers choose PowerBook over iBook, but PowerBook is still a pro-level notebook.

Before you try to sell me PowerMac G5, realize that in today's corporate world where mobility has become a competitive advantage and even a necessary component to success (e.g., telecommute, professional services, 99%+ service level agreement). Many pro users demand the power of desktop. For serious software development, engineering tasks, scientific analysis, audio/video processing, etc., 1 GB has become an absolute minimum. 2 GB will be the absolute minimum soon enough.

Now, I know that very few Wintel notebooks offer greater than 2 GB of memory (limited to few AMD Athlon 64-based notebooks). But 64-bit computing is where Apple can take the leadership position. At any rate, given the choice of either 32-bit and 64-bit computer, all things being equal, I doubt any would prefer 32-bit.

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.

IBM is not sitting idle. There are various technical discussions and even interviews with the 970 design team that points to bigger and better things for G5. Dual-core, improved VMX unit (a.k.a., Altivec), optimized layout, embedded memory controller, 65-nanometer fab, and improved PowerTune are all hinted as the future of G5.

And we should not forget, both G5 compiler and many applications are not even close to being fully optimized for G5. Just as G4's Altivec required many iterative software optimizations, application performance under G5 will continue to improve (in fact, Mac OS X Tiger will improve many math operation performance for "free").

That is not to say IBM will deliver PowerBook-friendly G5 before Freescale. That is anybody's guess. But the future of PowerBook is G5 and we shouldn't knock G5 off the radar just because Freescale is making some noises.

 

[pigwin32]

Yes, it sounds alll very nice but not until next year... according to a TheRegister.com article,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/28/freescale_g4_7448/

The single core and dual core processors won't sample until next year... months away.

Yeah the register article really highlights the issue for Apple and PB fans, the 7448 will not sample until first half 2005. How quickly Freescale can get these chips to production volumes and how soon Apple can get them into a PB remains to be seen. The chip itself is pin-compatible with the existing 7447A with a very minor speed bump to the FSB. It does look like being the next PB G4 chip, requiring little if any change to the existing PB.

The other two chips, the dual core MPC8641D and single core MPC8641 will sample second half 2005. Both look like contenders, the FSB issue disappears with on chip mem controllers, PCI Express, etc. But they are not pin compatible with the existing chip and will require a new mobo architecture. Again, the delay until these chips reach production volumes will determine when Apple can get them into a PB. I agree it would be great to see the dually in a PB but waiting over a year for it is going to hurt.

Meanwhile Apple must either be well down the road to shoe horning the G5 into a PB or wringing their hands in frustration.

 

[manu chao]

Hah!, there is no way apple is going to give the eMac a 1.5Ghz G4 right now, and if you look at the past the iBook G4's have been inheriting the last revision PowerBook G4's processor. I'd also have to say that a year from now we will still see a G4 in the PowerBooks unless you like toting around a 2.5-in. thick notebook.

I wouldn't call May 2005: 'right now' (or did I miss any irony).

 

[manu chao]

The first time I read about the 7448 was eight days ago here:
http://www.macosrumors.com/92104B.php
(Yes, I admit it, I was really very bored)

Could these guys be getting something right for a change?

 

[jeffbax]

As soon as this is available in a 12" or 15" PB I am buying it.

Dual Core G4 >>>> Single Core G5.

Hell... I don't think the G5 is very good for a laptop anyway... the 2.5 GHZ version runs at like 90c under full load... I'd rather not burn my unit off while trying to use the laptop.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

As soon as this is available in a 12" or 15" PB I am buying it.

Dual Core G4 >>>> Single Core G5.

Hell... I don't think the G5 is very good for a laptop anyway... the 2.5 GHZ version runs at like 90c under full load... I'd rather not burn my unit off while trying to use the laptop.

Yes I have to agree with that, in some cases the g5 can run even hotter than that though.

anyways ya a dual core g4 wouldbe a smart move for the powerbooks. Definitly a dual core 1.8 (or even higher) ghz powerbook g4 would make one heck of a machine, definitly with at LEAST a 400-600 mhz FSB.

 

[jouster]

There is another article, cited below which states the dual cores wont even go into production until the second half of 2005!

Worse than even that; it says they won't sample until 2H '05. Who knows how long after that they might take to iron out the problems and ramp up to Apple's required level?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

History shows .........................................

 

[IBSNOWEDIN]

I'm well aware of Tiger. I'm running it on my PB15 (that's a 32bit G4 in case you're wondering).

yeah i know tiger is backward compatible with 32bit cpu it would be stupid of apple not to do that.(i have tiger on my PB too)

The kernal (or whatever the core os is called on Mac) will be 32bit for a very long time.

i was just saying that their is going to be a 64bit os.

 

[joeboy_45101]

What you said:

I wouldn't call May 2005: 'right now' (or did I miss any irony).

What I said:

I'd also have to say that a year from now we will still see a G4 in the PowerBooks unless you like toting around a 2.5-in. thick notebook.

What I meant:

I'd also have to say that a year(2004 + 1) from now(September 2005) we will still see a G4 in the PowerBooks unless you like toting around a 2.5-in. thick notebook (The current G5's are too hot to fit in the form factor that Apple likes to use for it's notebooks, which is as thin as possible. And I believe that a PowerBook G5 right now would be around 2-2.5in. thick)

 

[SPG]

If in a year you could choose between a lighter Freescale based dual core 1.6 G4x laptop, vs a heavier 64bit 2.4 G5 laptop, that perform IDENTICALLY for 32 bit applications (for arguments sake), would you really choose the heavier laptop just to be "G5"?

I might not and you might not, but the average consumer would consider it a major factor. Add to this Apple's habit of handicapping their lower priced machines to keep their high end viable, and you'll see just about everyone who can afford it going for the G5.
It's not just science, but marketing as well.

 

[corbin_a2]

Dose anyone here know where you can find a rundown of the Power PC G4?

What was the original model called up through to the current 7457.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

dual core g4 powerbooks at wwdc, who agrees?

 

[aliasfox]

G4 Rundown

7400: 4-stage pipeline, half speed L2 cache up to 1 MB
7410: low power 7400, original TiBooks
7445: 7-stage pipeline, 256k on die L2, no L3 rev A PB 12"
7447: 7-stage pipeline, 0.13 micron, 512k on die L2
7448: 0.09 micron, 1 MB on die L2, support for 200 MHz frontside bus
7450: 7-stage pipeline, 256k on die L2, L3 cache up to 2 MB
7455: 7-stage pipeline, 256k on die L2, DDR L3 cache up to 2 MB
7457: 7-stage pipeline, 0.13 micron, 512k on die L2, DDR L3 cache up to 2 MB (never used by Apple)

The 7445 and higher (excluding the 7448) have support for a 167 MHz frontside bus, but no support for DDR.

I believe the 7400 was introduced at 0.25 microns, though I forget if the die shrink came with the 7410 or the 7450.

Believed accurate- correct me if I'm wrong

 

[reorx]

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!

While there are a lot of reasons to have a larger cache size on a given processor, the fact that they are going to be "phased-out" is probably not one of them. The reason for large CPU caches on "modern" hardware is because of the relatively slow speed of accessing main memory. In yesteryear, the cache was off-chip, expensive, and no where near as fast as today's on-die caches. The performance gain of a 1:1 clock-ratio cache is incredible. Just look at what it did for the Pentium M!

This was an intentional design feature: When mobile processors scale back their clocks, the external bus clock does not scale along with them. If you have a high clock rate on your memory controller, you pay that price even if your CPU is idling. The large on-die 1M cache runs at same speed as the CPU clock and will increase/decrease with the variations of the power management software. This provides the best of both worlds: fast when you need it, and battery life when you don't...

I think the "slow" 167MHz on my 1.5 GHz PB is just fine, seeing as I DO use it without an AC adapter most of the time...

 

[Nicky G]

OT

Yup. My Avatar is from the cover of Shadow of the Beast. Wish the Amiga would have gone somewhere besides into oblivion... I still have my A1200 with an '030 40Mhz upgrade and 10 megs of RAM.

Didn't that game also come out for Genesis, or was it Sega CD? The music was great if I remember correctly. Man, now I need the ROM.

 

[reorx]

Before you try to sell me PowerMac G5, realize that in today's corporate world where mobility has become a competitive advantage and even a necessary component to success (e.g., telecommute, professional services, 99%+ service level agreement). Many pro users demand the power of desktop. For serious software development, engineering tasks, scientific analysis, audio/video processing, etc., 1 GB has become an absolute minimum. 2 GB will be the absolute minimum soon enough.

I just don't get the need for the portable render farm. With widely available, high-speed internet connectivity, VPN and remote terminal capability, its a hell of a lot easier to just have a massive set of machines you access remotely. Hell, for *real* video production, you'd have to carry around a G5 sized disk array just to provide the storage and bandwidth. For most mobile warriors, their laptop is for communication and documentation, not in-the-weeds work. Most companies won't let you get a non-issue piece of hardware anywhere near their networks, much less let you put their intellectual property on it...

Just an observation. At some point, enough's enough...

 

[nek]

Now that Freescale has revealed their new chips, it seems obvious what Apple will do with these. The 7448 will go into the Powerbook, iBook, and eMac as soon as possible next year, then the 8641D will go into the Powerbook when it is available.

Unless IBM has a low power G5 planned to be released soon, Apple would be smart to use the 8641D in the Powerbook instead. Since it is a two core 1.5+GHz G4 with two 1MB L2 caches, two slightly improved Altivec units, integrated memory controller and ethernet, up to 667MHz bus, support for DDR and DDR2 memory, PCI Express, and operates at 15-25W. With the elimination of the current slow G4 bus and being dual core it will be faster than a single G5 anyway.

But since these are 90nm processors, will there be issues with actually producing them in sufficient quantity? Freescale/Motorola does not have a good track record and with everyone else having problems with 90nm, its hard to be optimistic.

And for those who feel there is some urgent need for a 64bit laptop because you somehow need and expect to fit more than 4GB RAM in it (yes, I know that 2GB and 4GB dimms exist), Freescale will have its 64bit e700 in the future, maybe by sometime in 2006(?). They are likely to continue their goal of low power chips, which is good news for Apple laptops.

 

[cube]

No auto-threading

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

You're wrong.

 

[Analog Kid]

I know I'm probably in the minority here but I really think apple should not spend money on developing a G5 laptop for at least a year. They should spend their resources on freescale technology.

Look at the best Intel mobile processor right now, the Pentium M. Is it the Big bad power hungry pentium 4 scaled and clocked down and crippled and still sucks up a bunch of power? Or is it an ultra effecient Pentium 3 with added features that performs in mobile environments flawlessly?

Apple should take this approach, FreeScale G4s for mobility, G5s for the true power... its much like the mobile pentium 4 situation.

I wish people would stop buying into the marketing hype of the G5... its not a freaking mobile processor!!!! IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED FOR IT!!!!

Thank you-- finally someone who sees the world like I do... Keep two lines of chips-- best of both worlds.

Desktops are made to be expandable in memory and peripherals and laptops are made to be light and cool. Very different requirements. Everybody understood this before Mot hit the wall and Apple was forced to put laptop chips in their desktop G4 towers-- and then everyone got confused.

The 64bit confusion was further exacerbated by AMD's Opteron. The Opteron wasn't so much faster because it has more bits, it's faster because it has a better core.

While I might understand a little G4/G5 confusion from the masses, I really can't understand why so many people who have put in the effort to find these forums and have access to the knowledge of some pretty knowledgeable folks here still seem to think they'd rather have a slower G5 instead of a faster G4... It's like the perception of performance is more important than the real thing.

If you look at the benchmarks coming out of Barefeats and others, the G4 isn't doing too badly against the G5 even today. Double those up and clock them faster and eliminate the bottleneck to memory and you've got a great machine that has one very specialized limitation: memory depth.

64bit workstations and full 64bit OS's are only used in very, very specialized applications: ones that need a lot of memory. Where the penalty of swapping to disk far outweighs the penalty of manipulating 64bit pointers.

My work uses a mix of 32bit and 64bit machines. We've got applications that run for weeks at a time processing data. Whenever possible we run those on 32bit machines because they're faster. We only run on 64bit machines when the data model exceeds the memory limit of the 32bit machines.

Software is not going to obsolete your 32bit machine. I have to say that for a company that makes most of it's money from hardware, Apple has been very commendable in supporting legacy hardware. Yes that could change, but it would have to be an intentional move to force hardware upgrades and it would signal a severe change in Apple culture.

Look at the OS9 to OSX transition-- OSX hasn't steadily outdated old hardware (excepting some very old machines). Instead they stopped selling hardware that would run the old OS first and kept the new software backwards compatible.

Look at what they did with the "fat binaries" to transition from the 68000 to the PowerPC-- talk about jumping through hoops to support outdated hardware!

If Freescale delivers, the e600 series is the way to go for portables. Hands down. The worst of it will be a dry patch while we wait for the new chips to arrive over the next year. First we'll see a small speedbump to the discrete device, then a move to the dual core when they're available.

When dual cores are ready, that will be the distinguishing feature between Powerbooks and iBooks.

When this happens, Apple will finally have the lineup I think they want-- well defined differences between consumer and pro, and portables that do what portables should and desktops that do what desktops should.

Powerbooks will continue with the dual G4 until memory limitations become a problem for the majority of users-- not the folks who want bragging rights, but the folks who make smart buying decisions based on all the factors in their portable. When that happens we'll see a move to a dual 64bit core. Maybe from IBM, or maybe the e700 series if it materializes.

If Freescale falls apart or changes direction again, then Apple will be back to their recent past of trying to enhance and hobble machines to keep a broad product line.

And did I mention DDR2?! Oh yeah! Keep that power low, baby, keep it low! Yeah... Just like that...