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.
IBM at 90nm by Q4?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope there are G5's next summer for school next year i don't care for much before that because i don't think i would be let to buy a new one before that unless my 12'' breaks. Someone said the design is great i agree in most cases but the footpads are terrible they dont stay on and the battery isn't flush, those are the only things I dont like but I want a bigger wide screen, but not 15'' try like 13 that would be awesome but im not sure how the font would be if it would be two small, I really don't like hearing people saying things aren't possible, because they are and they probably start work on the newer product right after or even before they anounce its predecesor
You can bet Steve Jobs has a G5 Powerbook on his desk right now. It may have alot of unresolved manufacturability and functionality issues, but all preproduction computers do. They are complex interdependent devices.
What would be exceptionally cool is a "Powerbook cooling dock" that is NOT a dongle, but one of those flat plates that fit under your (12" min) Powerbook and COOL IT. Heck integrate a battery if you must. So what if you added a half inch or more. It is an OPTIONAL ACCESSORY not needed for superlightweight notebook needs. When you want to burn some power you are willing to be encumbered just a bit.
It would also make dual processor G5's immediately practical as the system would only run on half power, one processor, then when the dock is engaged, and full power dual or quad processors okay.
Rocketman
What would be exceptionally cool is a "Powerbook cooling dock" that is NOT a dongle, but one of those flat plates that fit under your (12" min) Powerbook and COOL IT. Heck integrate a battery if you must. So what if you added a half inch or more. It is an OPTIONAL ACCESSORY not needed for superlightweight notebook needs. When you want to burn some power you are willing to be encumbered just a bit.
It would also make dual processor G5's immediately practical as the system would only run on half power, one processor, then when the dock is engaged, and full power dual or quad processors okay.
Rocketman
There are two errors in this post.
1) You compute a linear relationship between clock speed and power requirements--the actual relationship is nonlinear. The current 970 G4 which drains 48W @ 2Ghz (not 57 as mentioned) also drains only 19W @ 1.2Ghz. This means a 1.6Ghz hypothetical 90nm PPC 980 would be under 20W and into the range allowed for a Powerbook.
2) No, 57W is not awfully high and it isn't in the P4 range. Yes, it is a lot larger than the thirty something watts that a G4 at top speed uses, but a 3.2Ghz P4 currently has drains over 100W at peak (Intels specs are a little funky so you have to add around 15 watts to their numbers). In other words, a 2x2G5 uses around the same power a a single 3.2Ghz P4! Maybe this is how you thought that it was "in the P4 range" as the P4 does not come in dual CPU configurations.
Having said this, I think the implication of the rumor is overly optimistic. IBM announced to the world the 970 @ 1.8Ghz a full year in front of the time they started to appear in shipping systems. Given that sort of lead time, I think it is more reasonable that may be some of the currently sampling 970s @ 90nm for production in 2Q or 3Q 2004 have leaked and are feeding the rumor mill.
Of course, if it comes sooner, I wouldn't object
and neither should PC owners since Intel is sitting on the next generation Pentium Ms due to lack of competition.While true in spirit, this isn't completely true. Apple introduced the G3 Powerbook shortly after the G3 systems. Both had the same case as previous desktop and notebook counterparts. They were quickly replaced with much better models.
I doubt Apple will do this again.
As long as people keep posting it, I'm going to keep adding this disclaimer. 1) It is not made by OpenOSX. All OpenOSX does is repackage what someone else makes for free. Users would do better installing Bochs themselves than using that companies products giving their reputation..
Also, it isn't G5 optimized. All they did was compile it with the latest version of gcc (possibly, but doubtful, they could have used IBM's XLC). Anything else is a violation of LGPL. Since Bochs emulates even the endian in software and uses no hardware accelleration other than provided in the compiler, I'd bet is is slower than Virtual PC (I haven't confirmed as I already have a copy of VPC and don't own a G5).
You can trust microInquirer as much as the paper its printed on. The rumor is that Intel has had serious issues getting anything coming out of Fab11x (their 90nm facility) that works like it does in their Oregon design fab. The reality is Intel has yet to release a single chip at 90nm (as noted by a previous poster, 90nm Xilinx FPGAs are coming out of Fishkill though FPGAs are simpler than processors and thus easier). I've said this for months and Intel has yet to prove me wrong, in fact one wonders why they had to come out with the "Extreme Edition" P4 @ 3.2Ghz to counter the Athlon64 launch if they could put out 90nm processors. Perhaps by December...
Take care,
terry
Stupid Question of the Day
Almost embarassed to ask, but since I don't know, I'm honest enough to ask....
Can someone explain to me how the heat of the processor chip is measured in watts?
I understand a lower number is better, but I don't understand the scale. X watts as this processor speed, Y watts at that.
So, for example, would a chip giving off 57W of heat be as hot as a 60W light bulb?
Almost embarassed to ask, but since I don't know, I'm honest enough to ask....
Can someone explain to me how the heat of the processor chip is measured in watts?
I understand a lower number is better, but I don't understand the scale. X watts as this processor speed, Y watts at that.
So, for example, would a chip giving off 57W of heat be as hot as a 60W light bulb?
Actually, there is a linear relationship between clock speed and power requirements. However, there is also a quadratic relationship between core voltage and power requirements. Specifically, the 1.2 Ghz part described in the original 970 presentation was a 1.1v part, while the 1.8 Ghz part was a 1.3v part. Assuming a similar speed up occurs independently of core voltage, by this rumor a 90nm 970 would be capable of running in the 1.9-2.1 Ghz range at 1.1v (while using approximately 75% of the power of it's 1.3v brother at the same clock speed). Relative to the 3.2 Ghz part on page 2, a 2Ghz 970 at 1.1v would use about 32 watts - similar to the rumored power usage of the 2Ghz part mentioned on the page 2 version of this rumor actually.
The IBM PowerPC 750GX will probably also be reduced to 90nm along with the 970. One of the key selling points of the 750XX is it's low power consumption in the embedded market, so further reducing of the 750GX from 130nm to 90nm seems likely to happen. Unlike the G5, the 750xx line is not solely produced for Apple, meaning it moves ahead independent of Apples needs from a processor.
p9
p9
ok, I'm not an engineer but I'm pretty sure power dissipation does go up linearly as frequency increases. The 1.2 ghz 970 is of a lower core voltage than the 2.0 ghz 970. So, as I stated in my original post, under the same voltage, the 1.6 ghz 90 nano 970 would be around 27W.
Actually my statement is accurate if you are comparing the chips at the same clock speed. According to this intel document, Pentium 4s give off around 55W at 2 ghz. Again I'm not an engineer so I can't judge the validity of Intel's claims but just so you know that I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.
Re: Stupid Question of the Day
Watts are simply a measure of energy transmitted per second. For electricity, that is amps times volts. For an entire processor, an estimate can be made by using the equation W = V * V * S * C, where W is watts, V is volts, S is clock speed, and C is capacitance. (physically, this is volts by volts by farads by hertz, which comes out as watts). Typically shrinking transistors reduces capacitance (smaller circuits hold less power), slower clock speeds reduce the power (the slower the chip goes the less power it uses). Additionally, the higher the voltage, the easier it is to raise the clock speed of the chip, hence you will often see chips with lower voltages having lower high end clock speeds.
Now, relating all this to the light bulb in your ceiling. Yes, 57 watts from your CPU is exactly the same as 57 watts from that light bulb. The difference is that the primary output from the light bulb is light (duh) and heat. A CPU however, converts far less energy into heat, as if it did it would not perform at all (it needs the electricity to do it's work). Thus a CPU consuming 57 watts will not be as hot as a light bulb doing the same, but then it also won't be a bright =).
Watts are simply a measure of energy transmitted per second. For electricity, that is amps times volts. For an entire processor, an estimate can be made by using the equation W = V * V * S * C, where W is watts, V is volts, S is clock speed, and C is capacitance. (physically, this is volts by volts by farads by hertz, which comes out as watts). Typically shrinking transistors reduces capacitance (smaller circuits hold less power), slower clock speeds reduce the power (the slower the chip goes the less power it uses). Additionally, the higher the voltage, the easier it is to raise the clock speed of the chip, hence you will often see chips with lower voltages having lower high end clock speeds.
Now, relating all this to the light bulb in your ceiling. Yes, 57 watts from your CPU is exactly the same as 57 watts from that light bulb. The difference is that the primary output from the light bulb is light (duh) and heat. A CPU however, converts far less energy into heat, as if it did it would not perform at all (it needs the electricity to do it's work). Thus a CPU consuming 57 watts will not be as hot as a light bulb doing the same, but then it also won't be a bright =).
The article says "chips"... Not 970s, not even processors, just "chips".
There's no solid evidence that the 970 itself is going to 90nm, nor that it'll be one of the first chips off the new line...
Nothing about this article says anything about when G5 Powerbooks will ship. I'm guessing Power5 is first off the line...
The 970 just started shipping-- there's plenty that can be done with tuning the process on that before they start shrinking it.
Glad to hear IBM has a 90nm process running. Apple will get chips from it eventually. Life is good.
Re: Re: Stupid Question of the Day
Just a little clarification. The energy input in both examples is 57 watts. For output, in the case of the light bulb a significant portion (hopefully) exits a photons (light) and the rest as heat. In the case of a processor the outputs are heat and a very small (in terms of energy) change in the entropy of the system represented by the alterations in 1's and 0's in the information of the system. While I haven't done the calculation I'm pretty sure the entropy change is much LESS than the energy of the photons in the light bulb so I believe the processor gives off significantly more heat than the light bulb.
Cheers
Just a little clarification. The energy input in both examples is 57 watts. For output, in the case of the light bulb a significant portion (hopefully) exits a photons (light) and the rest as heat. In the case of a processor the outputs are heat and a very small (in terms of energy) change in the entropy of the system represented by the alterations in 1's and 0's in the information of the system. While I haven't done the calculation I'm pretty sure the entropy change is much LESS than the energy of the photons in the light bulb so I believe the processor gives off significantly more heat than the light bulb.
Cheers
I'm presuming you're talking holographic memories? 2010 on the inside... First as mass storage, and maybe eventually propogating into system memory.
Stuff like this comes and goes, and I wouldn't be too surprised if holographic memories went...
When the Shuttle was built, they thought it was fast, economical an safe. Turned out to be none of the three, but it was cool. Hard to think of anything faster, or more economical than a capsule. As unsafe as it looks, the physics are well understood, so it's safe too.
I like the Russian capsules-- set off a small explosion before touching down to cushion your impact!
Sorry, off topic...
The single purpose of the space shuttle was to be reusable. It is reusable. It was hoped that the reusability would make it more economic.
The question isn't what spacecraft we use to get into orbit, though. The question is what spacecraft we use to leave Earth entirely.
what... 90nm by the forth quarter... this year??
if they're available in quantity by the end of this year i think it's safe to say that Apple won't release G5 PowerBooks for at least another 6 months... maybe a little less. Apple usually stretches out their releases to get a bit more life out of them. and now they're seen they can get 8 months our of the 15" PB's... oh no!!
if they're available in quantity by the end of this year i think it's safe to say that Apple won't release G5 PowerBooks for at least another 6 months... maybe a little less. Apple usually stretches out their releases to get a bit more life out of them. and now they're seen they can get 8 months our of the 15" PB's... oh no!!
Um....no, I was serious: January 2005. Yes, I posted 2006 at first, but I also said approximately 17 months from now. Actually, its more like 15 months. I didn't bother figuring it out.
Just because IBM has a 90nm 970 ready by Q4 of this year, doesn't mean that Apple will have developed and tested a laptop using this chip. And MWSF is the perfect place to debut it, isn't it?
So no, I wasn't joking, although I did wink at you ---->
See, there I go again!!!Originally posted by NeoMayhem
Why the hell would you want virtual pc? The main reason to use a mac is to stay away from MS
I go as far as using Virtual PC on my Powerbook solely for the use of Fruity Loops. It's one piece of music software that has no counterpart on Mac.
I'm sure many Mac users use Virtual PC for the same reason, because theres always "just that one program" that is irreplacable. It's only the OS that sux.
Put a prototype, proof of concept machine on the CEOs desk?
What do you think a CEO does all day, play with toys?!
Are there any reports of actually seeing a G5 Powerbook in Cupertino? 90% of the analysis can be done without actually building one... Can actually be done better by simulation.
If I hadn't already gotten so far off topic, I'd ask why bother making your single purpose to be reusable just for the sake of being reusable?
No, the purposes were to build a transport which would allow more closely spaced missions at a lower cost-- the answer appeared to be reusability. Problem is that rather than just burning up a cheap engine in re-entry they had to go and find it and refurbish it. And then they had to comb over the entire hull with a microscope and ultra-sound. So it cost a fortune and took forever for each launch.
Trouble is by the time they realized this, they'd lost the ability to make the larger unmanned rockets. There's a last Saturn V sitting someplace waiting to be reverse engineered if need be, because NASA lost the blueprints...
But that would be way off topic in a thread about 90nm IBM chips, so I'll just appologize for the whim and try to get back on topic...
I'd bet we won't see 90nm chips on board any space craft before 2015, by the time they clear all the testing rigors and reliability requirements.
Did you even bother reading what I wrote before commenting on it?
The single purpose of the space shuttle was to be reusable. It is reusable. It was hoped that the reusability would make it more economic.
Don't argue with someone who already agrees with you. It wastes time and annoys the person who already agrees with you.
everything depends on Motorola, how long will they continue to provide G4 for Apple, I think since CEO departure from Moto, it is quite well admitted that there will be no futher development of the G4, so at the best we can expect 7457 finally taped out and produced...that's all.
so the rumors of IBM working on a altivec-enable G3 make lot of sens in that particular context
Bochs vs VPC
I couldn't agree more.
I have used both, the original open source bochs v2.0 and VPC v6.
On my 1Ghz TiBook I tried to install Debian Linux under bochs but gave up after one day. It was unbearably slow.
On the other hand, installing it under VPC was almost as fast as on my old Pentium III 600Mhz. As a result, I have now several VPC instances running Debian, FreeBSD, PC DOS.
I couldn't agree more.
I have used both, the original open source bochs v2.0 and VPC v6.
On my 1Ghz TiBook I tried to install Debian Linux under bochs but gave up after one day. It was unbearably slow.
On the other hand, installing it under VPC was almost as fast as on my old Pentium III 600Mhz. As a result, I have now several VPC instances running Debian, FreeBSD, PC DOS.
Smaller 970s are inevitable.
I doubt that we will see G5 PowerBooks before the end of this year. The latest revisions were announced only a few days ago.
Smaller 970s are inevitable. I imagine that Apple would wait for these before changing the innards of the PowerBooks. As for the G4 iBook, the current 12" PowerBook's motherboard can easilly be fitted in its form-factor so maybe that is what will happen. This is 2003 and G3s are so nineteen-nineties...
Apple can improve their PowerMacs now with dual G5s across the line. Heck, make the high-end PowerMac a quad-G5 if the technology permits it. I am sure IBM would love to see such a desktop put to shame anything with Intel Inside.
As for the XServe, get the G5s and Serial ATA drives in there all-ready Apple.
I doubt that we will see G5 PowerBooks before the end of this year. The latest revisions were announced only a few days ago.
Smaller 970s are inevitable. I imagine that Apple would wait for these before changing the innards of the PowerBooks. As for the G4 iBook, the current 12" PowerBook's motherboard can easilly be fitted in its form-factor so maybe that is what will happen. This is 2003 and G3s are so nineteen-nineties...
Apple can improve their PowerMacs now with dual G5s across the line. Heck, make the high-end PowerMac a quad-G5 if the technology permits it. I am sure IBM would love to see such a desktop put to shame anything with Intel Inside.
As for the XServe, get the G5s and Serial ATA drives in there all-ready Apple.