IBM on PowerPC 970MP Power Savings

[combatcolin]

What i would really like in a Power Mac is the ability to run at the slowest speed possible and then ramp up when things get busy and then slow back down again.

Does anyone need multi Ghz processing to run a web browser or a word processor?

Electricty bills are never going to get any cheaper!

 

[texlaw04]

Remember that just because a new chip is coming out, or because a tech vender like Apple goes from one chip design to another (ppc -> x86) doesn't make the old immediately "crap." I am getting a Quad, and it will most likely be supplanted by a x86 PowerMac in about a year, but that doesn't mean that it is then crap. It is still what it is. It hasn't magically become slower. It just means that technology has moved on.

...

Believe me, you will all feel better if you stop thinking of your machines as crap once newer machines come out.

Thanks for bringing us back to reality! Yes, new is good, but yesterday's machines, if well designed and well-made, are not going to become less productive for the core apps most of us use.

Mobile computing has to be at the DRM standard? Not exactly. We have already seen that the most consistent sellers in the notebook market are mid-range, non-DRM designs with a good balance of performance, weight, battery life, and peripheral support. Why? Because most of us buy a notebook for actual "mobile" computing. Personally, I ditched my Firewire Powerbook [stifles a tear] because it hurt my shoulder to carry it across the UT campus and wasn't supported by the testing software at UT School of Law. The 4.4 lb, magnesium-cased, powder-coated P3 750 Toshiba Portege 4005, a true business-class machine, has been with me for almost 4 years and it continues to perform business-related functions very well, despite being slow by modern standards. Still, does Office 2003 fail to load? No. Have the replacement machines in the sub-5lb market become lighter or gained a larger screen? No. Do I even pretend to do multimedia functions? Not bloody likely. I bought the best machine available (for my intended use) at that time for a fair price and, 4 years later, it's still trucking. And my 23" Cinema consoles me when I'm at home.

Toshiba and Apple...shouldn't there be a law against that marriage?

 

[JoeG4]

No future for PPC laptops? You kidding me?

7448s? 8641s? What about IBM's low power G5 that's pretty much ready for production as it is? (I think they're even already shipping, if not about a month or two away).

Having said that, I agree, it still isn't quite the Pentium M offerings, but I find it a tough pill to swallow to switch all the desktops JUST for the laptops.

 

[plinden]

Dual Core Opteron 95W
Dual Core G5 100W
Dual Core Xeon 150W

I wouldn't say it's very hot. It's comparable to the best competitor.

Don't forget the G5 is considerably smaller than many, if not most, other mainstream CPUs. I'm going on memory now, so I'm probably wrong, but I seem to recall that the G5 is 1/3 the size of the Xeon, so the heat output/square mm is twice as high.

 

[solvs]

Dude... I submitted this. No credit?

Congratulations! You get a cookie.

But seriously, I liked the G5 and all too... but Apple knows the G4 is going nowhere fast. And the G5, though nice now (I have one... finally) won't help them much in the future. Intel says they have something, I hope they do. The P-M isn't that bad. If the P5, or whatever they call it, is more like it than the P4, we should be ok.

If not, there's always AMD.

 

[nagromme]

No future for PPC laptops? You kidding me?

7448s? 8641s? What about IBM's low power G5 that's pretty much ready for production as it is? (I think they're even already shipping, if not about a month or two away).

In what quantities can Apple COUNT on those chips? This has been a problem with both IBM and Freescale in recent years. It delayed the iMac G5 so long that there WERE no iMacs on sale for months.

And if Apple were planning on jumping on one of those allegedly available-soon PPC chips, they wouldn't have just updated the other specs on the PowerBooks.

Having said that, I agree, it still isn't quite the Pentium M offerings, but I find it a tough pill to swallow to switch all the desktops JUST for the laptops.

Laptops are the most URGENT reason to move to Intel (and laptops are the biggest sellers), but not the only one. Desktops will benefit too.

Remember, this transition is NOT based on Intel vs. PPC today. It's based on FUTURE chips. It's based on Intel vs. PPC next year, and the year after that.

So Intel in a PowerMac today is not needed. The G5 is a great chip. But the time will come in FUTURE when Intel has something better. Apple's getting ready in advance.

 

[DavidCar]

Something that concerns me is that the Quad tech specs list:

Line voltage: 100 - 125V AC or 200 - 240V AC (wide-range power supply input voltage)
Maximum current: At least 10A (low-voltage range) or 5A (high-voltage range)

What does this mean by "At least?" This already means 1000 to 1250 Watts, "at least."

I hope the power can be throttled down with all the interesting 970mp power options available.

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

I'm not really excited about this announcement. It's like saying, "Hey, look Timmy! I got you a new pair of artificial legs!", or something like that.

Well, sorry, I don't got it...

 

[AidenShaw]

it's real - look at the cord

Something that concerns me is that the Quad tech specs list:

Line voltage: 100 - 125V AC or 200 - 240V AC (wide-range power supply input voltage)
Maximum current: At least 10A (low-voltage range) or 5A (high-voltage range)

What does this mean by "At least?" This already means 1000 to 1250 Watts, "at least."

I hope the power can be throttled down with all the interesting 970mp power options available.

Also note that the new PM has a different power cord.

They went from the 10 amp (recommended) IEC C14 connector to the 16 amp IEC C20 connector....

http://www.quail.com/iec.cfm

 

[bigwig]

Remember, this transition is NOT based on Intel vs. PPC today. It's based on FUTURE chips. It's based on Intel vs. PPC next year, and the year after that.

I used to work for a company that relied on Intel's "future" (SGI). Just look at what Intel has done with the Itanium, compare that to their promises, and realize that relying on future projections from Intel is a fool's game.

Furthermore, look at Intel's current roadmap. Low power, low speed, and multi-core. The only reason that Intel has a performance advantage over the G4/G5 is Intel was able to massively increase clock rate to compensate for the x86's terrible ISA and architecture. PPC has always had a significant advantage in power consumption, and with Intel apparently abandoning massive clock rates the x86's advantages all but disappear. A G5 core is much smaller than an x86, allowing for more cores per die, it uses less power per core, and easily matches the low clock rates Intel is talking about (low-to-mid 2GHz). A G5 will blow away Intel's similarly speced units, especially on vector FP.

Since it's IMO obvious that a move by Intel to lower-speed cores only makes PPC more, not less, competitive with x86, why go Intel? Was it IBM's reputed insistence that Apple pony up some development dollars that drove Apple to Intel?

 

[dongmin]

No future for PPC laptops? You kidding me?

7448s? 8641s? What about IBM's low power G5 that's pretty much ready for production as it is? (I think they're even already shipping, if not about a month or two away).

Show me some proof that these aren't vaporware. If the 7448 were shipping as they were supposed to by this time, they would be inside the new PBs. They're pin-compatible, so there's no reason for Apple to not use them. Same old story for Motorola/Freescale.

 

[manu chao]

What i would really like in a Power Mac is the ability to run at the slowest speed possible and then ramp up when things get busy and then slow back down again.

Does anyone need multi Ghz processing to run a web browser or a word processor?

Electricty bills are never going to get any cheaper!

Apparently that is where the Pentium M really excels.

 

[DavidCar]

Also note that the new PM has a different power cord.

They went from the 10 amp (recommended) IEC C14 connector to the 16 amp IEC C20 connector....

http://www.quail.com/iec.cfm

So the maximum current is "at least" 10 amps, and at most 16 amps? Then "at least" 1000 to 1250 watts up to 1600 to 2000 watts?

I hope someone does some power consumption tests on these things.

 

[AidenShaw]

So the maximum current is "at least" 10 amps, and at most 16 amps? Then "at least" 1000 to 1250 watts up to 1600 to 2000 watts?

I hope someone does some power consumption tests on these things.

The previous generation G5 had up to a 600 watt power supply - at full load and with typical efficiency (75%), that's 800 watts or 7.3 amps steady. Typical load would probably be half that, unless you were loaded with disks and high wattage graphics and other cards.

However, the "peak" load is at poweron, when the capacitors fill. (Ever notice the lights dim a bit when you turn it on from cold?)

I didn't see the wattage rating for the dual-dual power supply, but presumably it's a bit larger than 600 watts, and the power-on surge exceeded 10 amps.

Product safety and regulatory groups like UL and similar agencies won't approve a device if the peak current (even for an instant) exceeds the recommended rating of the cord and receptacle. Therefore, Apple moved from the standard 10 amp IEC socket to the 16 amp socket.

This shouldn't mean that the new system draws more than 10 amps continuously - and its typical consumption may even be lower than the previous model.

 

[zang]

The problem I see that Intel currently has is that PC makers don't innovate. They simply use what's available, rather than help shape the future. IMO, it's been nothing but a hindrance to Intel's development. They have to lead, and yet have no idea what their lead is being created for. Imagine creating an engine for a "generic" car that could be an SUV, a sportscar, compact, without ever having the car companies helping you design it or telling you what it's going to go into and whether they need better economy, more torque, or more speed. That's been happening to Intel for the past 20 years.

Apple sits in the top 10 computer manufacturers in terms of units sold. They're suddenly hopping into a partnership with Intel. Apple knows what it wants it's processors for, and has always tried to build the processor into the machine, rather than build the machine onto the processor. Apple can provide Intel with focus and goals, rather than just asking "so what do you have that's new and backwards compatible?"

Bear in mind that Apple *is* a co-developer of the PPC. They're 1/3 owner of the technology behind it, and have even developed some parts single-handedly (Altivec for instance). Even though Apple never manufactured chips itself, it was always integral in the development of the PPC.

A partnership with Intel makes sense right now. Apple needs a partner who can supply things on time and to it's requirements, and Intel can finally get a partner who wants to forward it's platform and can (and will) help in the development of the processors.

 

[aegisdesign]

In what quantities can Apple COUNT on those chips? This has been a problem with both IBM and Freescale in recent years. It delayed the iMac G5 so long that there WERE no iMacs on sale for months.

IBM have said in the past that it's also Apple's procurement process which causes problems there. IBM have limited fab space for what amounts to essentially a custom processor and Apple order in small quantities with short lead times to keep inventory low. If IBM are busy making other chips then Apple miss their slot. Intel on the other hand just keep on churning out commodity chips so there's no danger of Apple missing a slot.

And if Apple were planning on jumping on one of those allegedly available-soon PPC chips, they wouldn't have just updated the other specs on the PowerBooks.

Who knows. I imagine they've had the Intrepid2 chipset in the works for a year expecting the 7448 to be ready for it but some delay or technical hitch meant they stuck with the 7447A. Or maybe indeed, quantities weren't available.

Laptops are the most URGENT reason to move to Intel (and laptops are the biggest sellers), but not the only one. Desktops will benefit too.

Laptops are only just the biggest sellers. Are they the highest margin sellers though?

Desktops won't benefit from Intel for quite some time yet based on the projections in the roadmaps for chips that haven't been released yet.

Remember, this transition is NOT based on Intel vs. PPC today. It's based on FUTURE chips. It's based on Intel vs. PPC next year, and the year after that.

Indeed, and unless you have a crystal ball, or you're Steve Jobs and you've been told the chip vendors roadmaps for both PPC and Intel, then predicting what each vendor has in the works is tricky.

So Intel in a PowerMac today is not needed. The G5 is a great chip. But the time will come in FUTURE when Intel has something better. Apple's getting ready in advance.

Actually, I think the transition is more subtle than that. With a switch to Intel the Mac will never be slower than the Wintel machines (except for the odd time when AMD is ahead like now). This is Apple finally saying that they aren't going to gamble on the PowerPC being faster than Intel and they aren't going to invest in R&D to ensure that. They spent a fortune on the G5. It's more cost effective to admit defeat.

It's a great pity. And egg will be on Apple's face if IBM, PA Semi or Freescale (however unlikely) come out with lower power, faster than Intel chips in the next couple of years.

This notion of AMD being hotter is like.... 2 years being out of date. Where have you been those 2 years

True except in mobile chips. The Turion just doesn't get close to Pentium M. This transition is all about mobile chips.

 

[elgruga]

who cares which chip wins?

IF IBM do manage to make a fast and cool chip in the next two years, Apple can just buy it, and put it in a box, cant they?
Or are we abandoning PPC so that all the work already done has gone?
Can someone explain what Apple are trying to do?

Is it going to be that all PC software will run on OSX Apple/Intel hard and software?
Are we going to have a simple competitor for Windows in OSX?
Or are we going to just have a whole new set of software being written for OS X on Intel?
Does this mean that software co.'s will have a version for Windows, a version for Apple on PPC, a version for Apple on Intel and a version for Linux etc.?

I dont really get what Apple is doing - are they going to run Intel/OSX and PPC/OSX side by side?

 

[840quadra]

IF IBM do manage to make a fast and cool chip in the next two years, Apple can just buy it, and put it in a box, cant they?
Or are we abandoning PPC so that all the work already done has gone?
Can someone explain what Apple are trying to do?

Is it going to be that all PC software will run on OSX Apple/Intel hard and software?
Are we going to have a simple competitor for Windows in OSX?
Or are we going to just have a whole new set of software being written for OS X on Intel?
Does this mean that software co.'s will have a version for Windows, a version for Apple on PPC, a version for Apple on Intel and a version for Linux etc.?

I dont really get what Apple is doing - are they going to run Intel/OSX and PPC/OSX side by side?

Many of your questions have been answered more then once on these forums. I would suggest doing a search in regards to "intel".

In short.

1. Apple has publicly stated is roadmap for the future. PPC is being phased out. This may change, or have a back door agenda that isn't known to the public. Apple says that new PPC products will end some time next year.

2. No , Regular PC software will not run on the new intel Macintosh computers. The only exception would be unix based applications that will port, or just work with the Darwin BSD core of OS X.

3. A simple competitor for Windows in OS X? I have no ideah what you are after with this question

4. Look up "Universal Binaries" on the forums, that will answer most of these questions. Otherwise Rosetta will handle legacy programs, excluding classic.

 

[Lacero]

Well, sorry, I don't got it...

Me neither. When I read it back, it probably means Timmy is already crippled, like the PowerPC chips. So if someone gave Timmy an artificial leg to replace his crutches, he's still crippled. So with even these low-power announcements, Timmy isn't too enthusiastic.

 

[Mr_T]

I have only a layman's understanding of the inner workings of a processor, so this may be terribly ignorant...

I don't see why IBM would be touting this. What's the point of getting a dual core chip and then saying "but wait! it can use much less energy and dissapate less heat when it automatically shuts down one of it's cores and reduces the frequency of the remaining core!" Why should I be excited about a super fast chip which can basically turn itself into a much slower chip? Doesn't that seem like saying, "My car can be much quieter when I only go 5 miles/hour?". Granted I use my Mac more than most folks (number of active programs open at once, heavy photoshop use, etc...), but then again my wife complained about her iMac being a bit slow/unresponsive at times. I fixed that by setting her energy settings to "highest". So again, what's so exciting about basically underclocking your expensive computer?

~ Mr.T

 

[840quadra]

I have only a layman's understanding of the inner workings of a processor, so this may be terribly ignorant...

I don't see why IBM would be touting this. What's the point of getting a dual core chip and then saying "but wait! it can use much less energy and dissapate less heat when it automatically shuts down one of it's cores and reduces the frequency of the remaining core!" Why should I be excited about a super fast chip which can basically turn itself into a much slower chip? Doesn't that seem like saying, "My car can be much quieter when I only go 5 miles/hour?". Granted I use my Mac more than most folks (number of active programs open at once, heavy photoshop use, etc...), but then again my wife complained about her iMac being a bit slow/unresponsive at times. I fixed that by setting her energy settings to "highest". So again, what's so exciting about basically underclocking your expensive computer?

~ Mr.T

Look at it this way, if you have high energy costs, need to keep systems online 24/7 for use as processing nodes or servers, having a system that will idle down while remainging "fully online" (not sleep) is a good thing.

Some tasks are more disk, memory, or network intensive then others. Having an intelligent system that can turn down the processor speed (a large energy user) in those situations is good, especially when you have allot systems running.

In the data center I work at, we will give customers a price break if they allow such features to be enabled in their system BIOS (talking Rack mount Dell and HP servers).

Also note that the new PM has a different power cord.

They went from the 10 amp (recommended) IEC C14 connector to the 16 amp IEC C20 connector....

http://www.quail.com/iec.cfm

Now I have to borrow power cords from our Dell 6650s as opposed to our HP DL3xx servers

Me neither. When I read it back, it probably means Timmy is already crippled, like the PowerPC chips. So if someone gave Timmy an artificial leg to replace his crutches, he's still crippled. So with even these low-power announcements, Timmy isn't too enthusiastic.

Sometimes we wonder about you Lacero

 

[Quartz Extreme]

not sure... not sure how useful this is on a desktop machine anyway. Presumably sleep mode shuts down power consumption to almost nothing anyway.

arn

The goal of this is likely to make the system run cooler/quieter.

Does the power saving mode of OSX take advantage of this?

Can the OS slow the CPU down and switch off a Core if its not needed?

Yes. There are settings in Energy Saver: maximum, reduced and automatic. Maximum keeps all cores running at full clock speed all the time, reduced turns off a core and clocks it down, and automatic switches it between the two dynamically depending on the task.

I would guess that the quad system would turn one core on each chip off when in this reduced power mode, as this architecturally makes sense.

Where this ability to disable a core for power saving will really shine is in the Intel PowerBook of the near future. (Intel's successor to the Pentium M, codenamed Yonah, is a low-power, 64-bit, dual-core chip, due out in mid 2006. It currently runs at 2.16GHz on a 667MHz FSB, and it can process SSE3 instructions and some cool new virtualization technologies. It is also completely new design, built from scratch! Now that is one insanely great chip. )

 

[Mr_T]

Look at it this way, if you have high energy costs, need to keep systems online 24/7 for use as processing nodes or servers, having a system that will idle down while remainging "fully online" (not sleep) is a good thing.

Some tasks are more disk, memory, or network intensive then others. Having an intelligent system that can turn down the processor speed (a large energy user) in those situations is good, especially when you have allot systems running.

Thanks for that explanation. This is probably why the announcement doesn't excite me. I don't think I'll be running any Powermacs as a server (or a node in some rendering farm). I can see why this is a good thing for some though.

~ Mr.T

 

[solvs]

You -> Stupid

This notion of AMD being hotter is like.... 2 years being out of date. Where have you been those 2 years

hideously overclocked AMD

 

[AidenShaw]

Now I have to borrow power cords from our Dell 6650s as opposed to our HP DL3xx servers

I'd use the cords from DL58x servers - I prefer HP to Dell ;-)

Intel's successor to the Pentium M, codenamed Yonah, is a low-power, 64-bit, dual-core chip, due out in mid 2006. It currently runs at 2.16GHz on a 667MHz FSB, and it can process SSE3 instructions and some cool new virtualization technologies.

Yonah is currently due around the end of 2005, and is 32-bit. It has SSE3, VT (Vanderpool virtualization technology), and a 667 MHz bus.

The next pass, Merom, is 64-bit and is due mid 2006.

Here's a roadmap table from AnandTech:

Pentium M Roadmap 
CPU Codename   GHz  Cores  FSB  Launch 
TBD Merom      TBD    2    667  2H'06 
x60 Yonah      2.33   2    667  2H'06 
x58 Yonah LV   1.83   2    667  2H'06 
x50 Yonah      2.16   2    667  Jan'06 
x48 Yonah LV   1.66   2    667  Jan'06 
x40 Yonah      2      2    667  Jan'06 
x38 Yonah LV   1.5    2    667  Jan'06 
x30 Yonah      1.83   2    667  Jan'06 
x20 Yonah      1.66   2    667  Jan'06 
780 Dothan     2.26   1    533  Jul'05 
778 Dothan LV  1.6    1    400  Jul'05 
773 Dothan ULV 1.3    1    400  Jan'06 
766 Yonah      1.83   1    667  2H'06 
756 Yonah      1.66   1    667  Jan'06 
TBD Yonah ULV  1.2    1    533  Q2'06 
TBD Yonah ULV  1.06   2    533  2H'06 
TBD Yonah ULV  1.06   1    533  Q2'06