IBM's PowerPC 970FX... at 2.5GHz?

[neilw]

Re: G5 in a PowerBook

Originally posted by Rend It
As an owner of the current 15" AlBook, I have a hard time understanding how Apple will pull off a 64-bit processor inside of a notebook ~1in thick. I'm not talking about the heat dissipation of the processor, I'm just referring to having at least twice as many circuit board traces on the main board.

The external buses on these systems are not directly tied to the width of the internal data paths of the processor; in fact, they are already wider.

It is true that as external buses get wider, and device pincounts gets higher, there is a need for more routing resources on the motherboard. That can usually be addressed by adding layers to the PCB, or other techniques that increase routing resources in exchange for higher cost.

But, in this case, the move from 32-bit to 64-bit internal data paths in the processor is not a direct factor in this.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Fukui
Except for the weight/battery, it is a good deal.

But what software does it come with?
And if apple can match those specs but cut the weight to 4~5lbs and 1-inch thich (I highly doubt the eMachines is anything less then 1.5~2 inches thick) and sell it for say 1899-even 1999, the powerbook g5 (15inch) would definitely be the better value IMO...

I don't think that apple can afford 2x prices.
In fact all thier laptops have been pretty good value for what you get, the only big difference is the speed of the CPU compared to others...hopefully that would end soon...

I agree when Apple's G5 PB's come out they will kick the eMachine's ass (they will be lighter, smaller, better designed).

My point which I keep trying to make over and over is that unless you are buying a PowerMac right now, nothing Apple is offering is worth the money. Since only Apple makes OS X compatible machines, we have to wait for Apple to release technology on their internal time table. On the PC side the Dell, HP, Sony, eMachine, etc., compete with releasing different configs, styles, etc., that competetion means everyone needs to have the latest fast chips in as many machines as possible or they will fall behind. No one pushes Apple. They just go around comparing the G5 to the top of the line Intel and AMD chips and say "Look how fast our computers are!" I agree the G5 is an amazing machine, but for those of us non-power users it would be nice to not have a two year old chip (1 GHz g4 was first introduced Jan. 2002) in the machines.

I love Apple too people, but can people here at least admit that another computer manufacturer might do something better than them?

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by cuneglasus
See! When Apple gets its REAL 64 bit laptop they can give it 7 stars.You wont have to stay near an outlet or carry a bag of batteries.

Hopefully, it won't have the 15" PB screen problems or the old G3 iBook logic board issues. Are you living in reality or do you just think that everything Apple does is grand that when Steve Jobs speaks he is infallible.

The question is when is Apple's 64 bit laptop coming out? I am sure when there 128 bit laptop comes out in ten years it will be amazing, but we are talking about what Apple sells now.

 

[From Win to Mac]

WHEN ?!?!?!????

I got the worktable, the 19 inch flat CRT, the speakers, the MiniDV camera, the accessories....

everything but the G5 !! C'mon Apple !!!

 

[Rend It]

Re: Re: G5 in a PowerBook

Originally posted by neilw
The external buses on these systems are not directly tied to the width of the internal data paths of the processor; in fact, they are already wider.

So, the G5 already has more than 64 input data lines? And the PowerBook G4 has more than 32? I was an EE undergrad, and it's been a while since my computer design course, but I thought that a n-bit processor requires n data input lines. I suppose if the bus had n/2 lines, then you could arrange to feed n bits over 2 clock cycles, but isn't that rather slow?

And if the buses are already wider than the processor data path, does that explain why modern computers have such disparity between bus and CPU speeds? And if the bus needs to be wider to compensate, then doesn't that imply that the number of external connections needs to scale up if the processor data path increases?

Just wild-eyed speculation.

 

[ultrafiel]

All this is great, but I want the Powermac update soon. This will be the first time I buy a computer, and didn't get a hand-me-down for my Dad. I need to get a G5 soon, or I'll have a hard time convincing a wife why I need to spend more money for a Mac. I'm ready Apple, the money's in the bank waiting. I guess if it takes longer though, maybe I'll get an Alchemy TV DVR for it also, as a review I read for it was outstanding.

 

[Fukui]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS.

Actually, I don't think that the percentage of affected users has too much to do with market share more than the fact that virus writers hate MS ALOTLOTLOTLOTLOT more than they do apple.

 

[PHARAOHk]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer

I love Apple too people, but can people here at least admit that another computer manufacturer might do something better than them?

I'll admit it, and also say you make an interesting point about competition that I really haven't considered. I have recently come to realize that the pro macs are very good but the consumer line is crippled. I want to use OSX so what choice do I have? It is a shame that the affordable macs aren't really competitive and hopefully the new IBM partnership will really improve this aspect of all macs.

I have also come to feel like market share isn't everything. In fact I like that macs hold a small share. I haven't seen the numbers but if Apple is a healthy company what's the big deal? BMW doesn't hold more then 5% of the auto market but so what? They are doing fine like I assume Apple is. Not getting as many viruses and having relatively more reliability is an asset for me and fundamental in preserving computer related works.
It's a sweet and sour type situation.

 

[eric67]

end of february

Originally posted by ultrafiel
All this is great, but I want the Powermac update soon. This will be the first time I buy a computer, and didn't get a hand-me-down for my Dad. I need to get a G5 soon, or I'll have a hard time convincing a wife why I need to spend more money for a Mac. I'm ready Apple, the money's in the bank waiting. I guess if it takes longer though, maybe I'll get an Alchemy TV DVR for it also, as a review I read for it was outstanding.

By the end of february, I would expect PMG5 update
the reason : the yesterday article regarding 90nm SOC produced by IBM for Apple has been removed from the web site!!!!!!!!!
guess who was asking for that action.........
so it confirms that updates will be here soon.
In addition, french mac rumors web site croquer.free.fr, which was the first to report PPC970 derivates (dual core, ...) reports that Apple ahs received PPC975 from IBM, those one will replace the PPC970fx found in the G5 xServe and in the next revision of PMG5.
PPC970fx was ready since a long time, but the ain reason why Apple could not deliver it is related to FSB and chipset frequency. Only the one announced yesterday will allow Aplle to install a PPC970fx running 2.5GHz (so a FSB at 1.25GHz), this chipset should allow a max FSB of 1.4GHz, so a PPC970fx at max 2.8GHz.
This chipset and PPC970fx will also find its way to the PowerBook, here more for heat release and power-consuming reason, than max performance.
Now, is Apple waiting for PPC975 for PMG5 update, or we will have PPC970fx in the PMG5 revision, I think this more important question...
PPC975 is reported currently at basal speed 2.8GHz, with current max at 3.4GHz (some at 4GHz in IBM labs).
PPC975 is based on Power5 architecture.
PPC976 will be the dual-core version of the PPC975

My prediction :
End of Feb : update of PMG5 with PPC970fx
WWDC : PowerBook G5 using PPC970fx
MacWorld July : new PMG5 update (Pro line?) including the new PPC975, available in September

let's wait and see

 

[rweidmann]

g5 versus pentium-m

does anybody know how a G5 powerbook would compare to a similarily clocked Pentium-m (centrino, dothan) pc-notebook. Yes the G5 rocks but the pentium-m also is an incredibly efficient cpu that might give the g5 a run for its money (clock for clock).

 

[ionas]

Pentium-M

while i dont know the numbers, i sell Pentium-M part time (in a x86 notebook-shop)

i guess they wont be faster, BUT if IBM and APPLE dont get their ass up very fast and very high ;p, their notebooks will eat more energy than the pentium-m based ones (most of them run without fan almost always, and run about 5 hours in office/internet use, its not a fake, its REAL)

 

[snowdog]

Re: g5 versus pentium-m

Originally posted by rweidmann
does anybody know how a G5 powerbook would compare to a similarily clocked Pentium-m (centrino, dothan) pc-notebook. Yes the G5 rocks but the pentium-m also is an incredibly efficient cpu that might give the g5 a run for its money (clock for clock).

Does it matter?
Does the intel run OSX?
Does the intel run iLife?
Does the intel look good?

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

Also, well I admit, that Windows (particularly XP) has security problems. I hate when Mac users insist that Mac's are better because they don't get viruses. The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

I know it is a pain, but maybe you should read the whole thread before you comment on one message.

I was just about to say something about the 5% marketshare but then i saw ur post. Not even if a majority of the marketshare used mac os, even 15% would be enough to get a crap load of hackers/crackers/phreakers/virus makers...so on. Actualy now with the 5% marketshare there is enough crackers out there that use macs. Its pretty funny how bill gates uses macs, at least he is smart enough to use them.

 

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Fukui
Actually, I don't think that the percentage of affected users has too much to do with market share more than the fact that virus writers hate MS ALOTLOTLOTLOTLOT more than they do apple.

They don't want to learn to program for the Mac either. They may not even have a Mac to learn on.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

No, that isn't true at all. Security by obscurity has already been proven false - if something has a flaw and someone has a reason to take advantage of it, it will be exploited. In the case of mydoom, it is a simple exploit based on the fact that 1) Problem between keyboard and chair, 2) That certain older (and still popular) versions of M$ e-mail clients allow clicked attachments to execute & install at will. Mydoom itself is actually a rather pathetically simple to write virus. To do the equivalent on Mac or Unix would require a LOT more knowledge and circumstances that simply aren't known to exist widely at this time.

So even if Mac OS X was 50% of the known computer universe, it is highly unlikely that something like Mydoom or it's friends would be inflicted on the community every 6-12 months.

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: Re: Re: G5 in a PowerBook

Originally posted by Rend It
So, the G5 already has more than 64 input data lines? And the PowerBook G4 has more than 32? I was an EE undergrad, and it's been a while since my computer design course, but I thought that a n-bit processor requires n data input lines. I suppose if the bus had n/2 lines, then you could arrange to feed n bits over 2 clock cycles, but isn't that rather slow?

The G5 uses a pair of unidirectional 32-bit busses effectively clocked at half the CPU speed (at least in Apple's machines thus far). The G4 uses a bidirectional 64-bit bus clocked at up to 166Mhz (in existing products at least).

This is really not as big a deal as it seems, your EE professors may have just not gotten around to telling you that yet .

All modern processors have an L1 cache, and that is where 99% of the CPU gets it's data from. The L2 (& L3 cache if present) are typically setup as victim caches - where cache lines that were evicted from the higher cache level live before being sent out completely. The L1 cache has very, very wide pathways, which is good for the CPU. The memory interface is responsible for feeding the L1 cache, and reads entire cache lines from memory. Since a cache line will always be larger than the busses leaving the CPU (G4 32 byte, G5 128 byte) the issue is simply in how fast you can fetch a cache line. How wide the bus is to do that only matters when you are determining how fast to run the bus at and how much bandwidth you will have for that task.

And if the buses are already wider than the processor data path, does that explain why modern computers have such disparity between bus and CPU speeds? And if the bus needs to be wider to compensate, then doesn't that imply that the number of external connections needs to scale up if the processor data path increases?

No, the main reason that there is such a huge disparity between bus speed & cpu speed (on most CPUs at least) is the fact that it is much harder to increase the speed of the system bus than it is to increase the speed of the CPU. Getting a fast system bus working is just like an air show - all the pilots have to perform just right or you get a potential tragedy.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by PHARAOHk
...
I have also come to feel like market share isn't everything. In fact I like that macs hold a small share. I haven't seen the numbers but if Apple is a healthy company what's the big deal? BMW doesn't hold more then 5% of the auto market but so what? They are doing fine like I assume Apple is. Not getting as many viruses and having relatively more reliability is an asset for me and fundamental in preserving computer related works.
It's a sweet and sour type situation.

I have never liked the luxury car comparison for Apple. Imagine if your car that came from a company with 5% market share used gasoline that was only availible at 5% of the gas stations (not really a fair comparison either - just trying to illustrate that Apple's proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is not good for us, the Mac users).

Not to mention as "healthy" of a company as Apple is. Right now, how much of that is based on Mac sales and how much on iPod/iTMS both of which are availible for windows.

Right now, the best thing Apple has going is OS X (to me at least, that is what really sets it apart from Windows machines) and the G5's. The problem is that since no other companies are allowed to make OS X machines Apple controls the entire G5 market. If UMax (or anyone else) were still making clones they would be trying to get a G5 based notebook out and it would put pressure on Apple to do the same.

The are two solutions (neither of which will happen) either Apple could release an x86 version of OS X, or they could bring back the clones. Either way you would end up being able to buy a $500 box that would run OS X. The problem is that while Apple's OS market share would skyrocket (particularly in the first example), their computer market share would plummet.

Obviously, Apple has decided that the money is to be made selling high-margin hardware, and that is the foreseeable future.

 

[Jonnod III]

Apple also controls the quality. With clones they don't.

That's how you get cruddy PCs (well, PCs that are cruddier than other PCs)

Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

You'd be surprised . We just make it look easy...

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
Apple also controls the quality. With clones they don't.

That's how you get cruddy PCs (well, PCs that are cruddier than other PCs)

Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

Yes, but more importantly control the prices and rate at which new technology is released.

The could still makes the best OS X computers. If the were that much better quality people would still pay a premium for them.

Maybe they don't like the idea of competition... sound familiar?

 

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
Apple also controls the quality. With clones they don't.

That's how you get cruddy PCs (well, PCs that are cruddier than other PCs)

Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

When's the last time there was a major PC mohterboard issue from motherboard makers(We're talking Server, Workstation, Dual, Integrated UWSCSI, RAID, etc. etc.) ?

FIC
Tyan
Gigabyte
Supermicro
Abit
Asus
Albatron
EIC
Intel

To me this is a non-factor. There are no clones because of Apple's chosen business model and that's about the only reason IMO.

 

[billyboy]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

Lets not go down that route. The only virus that will get me to enter my password to launch an unknown programme (like MyDoom) is one injected intravenously in a serum that induces madness.

On your other point, the eMachine quoted is good value, but equally, so is a PB. The thing is, if the eMachine had the same build quality and battery power management as a PB, plus the same integrated iLife software working in tandem with the full on professional version of the latest OS, then it too would cost much the same as a PB.

The marketing strategies are different. Apple put the extra stuff into Macs to make them last and to sync the hardware with the software. This makes Macs look dear. Many PC manufacturers on the other hand tend to pummel the senses with big numbers, but dont care to mention when their boxes are way under-specced in other perhaps more critical practical departments.

Fair play to them for creating this "illusion" that Macs are over-priced, because you can sure get PCs that are equally if not more expensive than the equivalent Macs. Talking in general terms, the average price of personal computers sold in 2003 is $1295. By definition, in a land of $500 Dells or whatever, there must be some very expensive PCs getting sold - and they are dear because they are specced out in all departments, just like Macs.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by billyboy
Fair play to them for creating this "illusion" that Macs are over-priced, because you can sure get PCs that are equally if not more expensive than the equivalent Macs. Talking in general terms, the average price of personal computers sold in 2003 is $1295. By definition, in a land of $500 Dells or whatever, there must be some very expensive PCs getting sold - and they are dear because they are specced out in all departments, just like Macs.

Do you consider an 14" iBook or at 15" iMac specced out? That is what $1295 buys you at the Apple Store. My complaint is that Apple business model allows them to drag their feet when it comes to new technology. With the exception of the PowerMac most Mac (PB's, iMacs, eMacs, and iBooks) come with a 1 GHz G4 chip. Apple starting put that into computer two years ago!.

Even a $500 piece of crap Dell doesn't come with a two year old chip in it!

 

[the future]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Do you consider an 14" iBook or at 15" iMac specced out? That is what $1295 buys you at the Apple Store.

The other poster said the *average* computer cost 1295 $ and the *specced out* PCs are much more expensive than that.

 

[the future]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
No, that isn't true at all. Security by obscurity has already been proven false.

The "security by obscurity" argument is indeed old and tired, no matter how often Microsoft marketing will repeat it. Here is a good article on why OSX is inherently more secure than XP: http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2003-08.html