G4 + faster FSB = ??

[iPoster]

I don't think Apple would consider it, since it would compete with G5 sales, but what would it take to mate the G4 processor with (for example) a 40~50% CPU speed FSB? I don't know more than the basics of computer architecture, but all I think you'd need to change is the multiplier of the G4. Since the FSB is the bottleneck in any G4 system, this should give a significant performance increase. What I'm getting at is a holdover for the PB and possibly iBook lines until the G5 gets cool enough for a notebook case.

So am I drinking too much of the Kool-Aid or what?

 

[bousozoku]

There is more to it than that. The G4 requires a separate system controller to manage traffic between the G4 and various subsystems.

What could help is the dual core G4 design that Freescale has available, if it's actually possible.

 

[quagmire]

There is more to it than that. The G4 requires a separate system controller to manage traffic between the G4 and various subsystems.

What could help is the dual core G4 design that Freescale has available, if it's actually possible.

The dual core G4 isn't avaiable in till early next year. It will be sampled this fall. Unless things have changed since October/November reports.

 

[Flynnstone]

Just putting a dual core G4 on the same bus wouldn't help alot. A single core G4 abuses the bus as it is.
Now if Freescale made a G4 with the memory controller on processor chip and still use the present bus to connect to the host bridge ... that would be a hit. We would have some very fast G4s. Could approach the performance of the G5. Perhaps a little competition for IBM.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Well even if they use the 7448 as the next step, it is still suppose to come with a 200Mhz FSB which would be an improvement. Not revolutionary by any means, but it would help. A 1.8Ghz 7448 with a 200Mhz FSB and 1MB L2 cache would give a good performance bump for the portables until dual core is ready to go. My guess is you will see something like this in the G4 lines this summer. I always thought if they could implement the Rapid IO bus the G4 would knock out the G5 in performance at the same clock speed. Time will tell.

 

[zen.state]

We would have some very fast G4s. Could approach the performance of the G5. Perhaps a little competition for IBM.

the 1.67+ G4 chips already give the 1.6 and 1.8 single G5's a run for their money and on a much slower bus (167mhz) to boot.

 

[gekko513]

Freescale already has at least two models, single core and dual core G4 versions in the pipeline with support for faster FSB and something they call Rapid IO.

 

[gwimby]

Those new freescale chips are quite amazing.
They actually put dual cores, plus the memory controller and the
"northbridge" all onto the same die, all with a high speed interconnect,
similar to the one AMD is useing for the A64's integrated memory controller.
All this and it only uses something like 10-20 watts.

The problem is that these chips are being targeted for the industrial market,
so it remains to be seen if they will develop a version for apple.

Someone on thses forums had a friend that works at freescale, according to them there was not much known about the new chips, they had not taped out as of yet, this being like month ago.

 

[cube]

The problem is that these chips are being targeted for the industrial market,
so it remains to be seen if they will develop a version for apple.

Motorola/Freescale have been targeting the embedded market with their PowerPC for years, Macs are just a byproduct to them. There won't be a different version for Apple. Why would it be needed, just to remove some ethernet controller(s)?

 

[caveman_uk]

the 1.67+ G4 chips already give the 1.6 and 1.8 single G5's a run for their money and on a much slower bus (167mhz) to boot.

Indeed, the G4's aren't as bad as a lot of people make out. The last Dual 1.42 Powermac G4, whilst obviously not as fast as a top of a line powermac G5 can give a single processor G5 machine a serious run for it's money. The large L3 cache helps on these machines too.

I still think the powermac G4's were a better form factor than the new G5's - two optical drives, four drive bays, smaller, better looking, takes normal PCI cards not some wierd niche PCI-X. Noisier though

 

[pawnstar]

freescale do have a slightly faster fsb version of the G4 (@200Mhz) that is pin for pin compatible with the existing chips. Also the next versions of the chip have the "system-on-a-chip", so the memory controller etc (as noted prev) are all there.

For more:

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=DRPPCDUALCORE

 

[cube]

You can put 3.3V PCI cards in PCI-X slots.

 

[caveman_uk]

You can put 3.3V PCI cards in PCI-X slots.

Not all PCI cards are though and it's hard to tell which ones aren't.

 

[cube]

Not all PCI cards are though and it's hard to tell which ones aren't.

Look at the PCI connector of the card. If the slot is towards the I/O flange (pins 12 and 13) it's a 3.3V card. If the slot is away from the flange (positions 50, 51) it's a 5V card. If both slots are there it's a universal card.

 

[Platform]

Indeed, the G4's aren't as bad as a lot of people make out. The last Dual 1.42 Powermac G4, whilst obviously not as fast as a top of a line powermac G5 can give a single processor G5 machine a serious run for it's money. The large L3 cache helps on these machines too.

I still think the powermac G4's were a better form factor than the new G5's - two optical drives, four drive bays, smaller, better looking, takes normal PCI cards not some wierd niche PCI-X. Noisier though

I agree on that.....the G4's are nice machines...a lot better in many ways, the G4 is very efficient....bad that the G5 is not like that

 

[caveman_uk]

Look at the PCI connector of the card. If the slot is towards the I/O flange (pins 12 and 13) it's a 3.3V card. If the slot is away from the flange (positions 50, 51) it's a 5V card. If both slots are there it's a universal card.

That's going in my list of 'Top Tips'. Obviously you need to be able to see the actual card to know but it's a great tip all the same.

 

[zen.state]

Indeed, the G4's aren't as bad as a lot of people make out. The last Dual 1.42 Powermac G4, whilst obviously not as fast as a top of a line powermac G5 can give a single processor G5 machine a serious run for it's money. The large L3 cache helps on these machines too.

I still think the powermac G4's were a better form factor than the new G5's - two optical drives, four drive bays, smaller, better looking, takes normal PCI cards not some wierd niche PCI-X. Noisier though

speaking of a large L3.. I remember hearing that the mdd with the nice L3 were making apps like virtual pc actually perform well for once. connectix (now owned by microsoft?) figured out how to use the L3 to great gain. they even used that in the recommended requirements.