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's PowerTune Technology
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple Engineering
If Apple engineering is at all like a typical engineering design system, they have a small group of engineers dedicated to portables, and maybe even PB. I would say this is very likely since teh PB has become a cash cow for Apple. They would keep in excellect contact with a "Futures Engineering" group that is looking a few years down the road, determining feasibility, and making crude prelim designs. I assume Apple has adopted the trend of concurrent design, so the PB engineering group would also keep close contact with suppliers, manufacturing, and everyone else that affects the product delivery timetable.
With all that in mind, what do you think the PB engineers have been doing for the last year? They have known that the G5 is coming for many years, and the future engineering group likely has had a few PB G5 concepts for a while.
The processor IS just one of many componants, but as far as I know it is the componant over which Apple has teh LEAST control. Apple has had time to develop all the rest of the PB, now the G5 is about ready.
Therefore, I see no reason why the PB G5 design would not be done within weeks. Please explain where I am wrong, as you seem quite adamant that PB G5 is much farther down the road.
If Apple engineering is at all like a typical engineering design system, they have a small group of engineers dedicated to portables, and maybe even PB. I would say this is very likely since teh PB has become a cash cow for Apple. They would keep in excellect contact with a "Futures Engineering" group that is looking a few years down the road, determining feasibility, and making crude prelim designs. I assume Apple has adopted the trend of concurrent design, so the PB engineering group would also keep close contact with suppliers, manufacturing, and everyone else that affects the product delivery timetable.
With all that in mind, what do you think the PB engineers have been doing for the last year? They have known that the G5 is coming for many years, and the future engineering group likely has had a few PB G5 concepts for a while.
The processor IS just one of many componants, but as far as I know it is the componant over which Apple has teh LEAST control. Apple has had time to develop all the rest of the PB, now the G5 is about ready.
Therefore, I see no reason why the PB G5 design would not be done within weeks. Please explain where I am wrong, as you seem quite adamant that PB G5 is much farther down the road.
Big deal? If you go with one thousandth of a second and 2200 processors, that is 2.2 seconds. In that 2.2 second look at how many calculation could be completed. Using the Apple benchmarks, that would be 19.8 gigaflops of double precision floating point operations or 6.82 million nucleotides. That is a lot of lost time as the CPU gets ramped up. What if the last thread only took a few second to complete?
Re: Apple Engineering
You stated that FAR BETTER than I could! I'm glad you said it and posted it for the rest...it's true people. Just expect it very soon
You stated that FAR BETTER than I could! I'm glad you said it and posted it for the rest...it's true people. Just expect it very soon
Re: Apple Engineering
Where did I ever say that Apple was doing nothing in regards to a G5 in a PB? IBM could have gotten the processor done before Apple was ready for it in regards to it being used in a G5 PB. The chipsets required could be quite different then what the PM is using. Creating a new chipset from scratch at a new process (90-nm) is a huge undertaking. All of the 90-nm products available now were once fabbed at 130-nm. The 970FX was mainly just a die shrink from 130-nm with a few additions to it. Not the same as something built for 90-nm from the start. Most companies move an existing product to a new process as they know the ins and outs and know that it works. If they have problems with the end product, they know what it is, the process and not the design. 90-nm is very new to most companies, IBM included.
I don't know when a G5 PB will be ready, neither does anyone else here. If someone does know, they can't say because of an NDA. Look at some of the other threads. Like the Hypertransport 2 announcement. People said now that that is out, Apple will release new PM's. Didnt happen did it? Why do you think within weeks? The Xserve was announced last month. How do you know the holdup was IBM? When will G5 based PB's be available? When Apple is ready to release them that is when, not before and not after. Just because an announcement is made doesn't mean you will see Apple release the hardware that will use it the same day, same week or even the same month.
Consider what I'm saying as a dose of reality, instead of hanging on to a strand of hope at every announcement. How many times were the PM's and PB's supposed to be updated? At least three times in January, then again for HT2, etc.
Where did I ever say that Apple was doing nothing in regards to a G5 in a PB? IBM could have gotten the processor done before Apple was ready for it in regards to it being used in a G5 PB. The chipsets required could be quite different then what the PM is using. Creating a new chipset from scratch at a new process (90-nm) is a huge undertaking. All of the 90-nm products available now were once fabbed at 130-nm. The 970FX was mainly just a die shrink from 130-nm with a few additions to it. Not the same as something built for 90-nm from the start. Most companies move an existing product to a new process as they know the ins and outs and know that it works. If they have problems with the end product, they know what it is, the process and not the design. 90-nm is very new to most companies, IBM included.
I don't know when a G5 PB will be ready, neither does anyone else here. If someone does know, they can't say because of an NDA. Look at some of the other threads. Like the Hypertransport 2 announcement. People said now that that is out, Apple will release new PM's. Didnt happen did it? Why do you think within weeks? The Xserve was announced last month. How do you know the holdup was IBM? When will G5 based PB's be available? When Apple is ready to release them that is when, not before and not after. Just because an announcement is made doesn't mean you will see Apple release the hardware that will use it the same day, same week or even the same month.
Consider what I'm saying as a dose of reality, instead of hanging on to a strand of hope at every announcement. How many times were the PM's and PB's supposed to be updated? At least three times in January, then again for HT2, etc.
Yeah really
Since WHEN has Apple ever been speedy with updates, especially major ones?
What we can expect:
1) No news on PB updates for 6 months
2) An announcement, then a two month wait for actual shipping
3) A delay
4) Products ship, but something is wrong with it
5) Apple denies there's anything wrong
6) Consumer advocacy groups get called in
7) Apple tries to resolve the issue
8) Apple gets sued
9) Macolytes spend countless hours on Apple rumor sites using the MHz Myth as a crutch to defend plodding G4s
I'll give 2-1 if anyone cares to make a bet 😉
Since WHEN has Apple ever been speedy with updates, especially major ones?
What we can expect:
1) No news on PB updates for 6 months
2) An announcement, then a two month wait for actual shipping
3) A delay
4) Products ship, but something is wrong with it
5) Apple denies there's anything wrong
6) Consumer advocacy groups get called in
7) Apple tries to resolve the issue
8) Apple gets sued
9) Macolytes spend countless hours on Apple rumor sites using the MHz Myth as a crutch to defend plodding G4s
I'll give 2-1 if anyone cares to make a bet 😉
Lan brown: what do the pb's require that the present PB's don't have?
Everyone else: It seems like everyone else is right here, its not like the G5 powerbook idea is coming out of nowhere: the most significant reason that all of us have cited over the past 8 months as to why they wouldn't get G5s in powerbooks soon was the processors' heat production and energy consumption. With these two problems seemingly fixed, what (besides the bus) do you think needs to be implemented into the design of the PB? I mean, I know very little about what the differences between G5 and G4 will present as far as the other parts, but it would seem to me that they don't have to replace everything in the PB just becasue its a next gen processor. Am I wrong about this, or does Lanbrown actually know about as much as me?
Everyone else: It seems like everyone else is right here, its not like the G5 powerbook idea is coming out of nowhere: the most significant reason that all of us have cited over the past 8 months as to why they wouldn't get G5s in powerbooks soon was the processors' heat production and energy consumption. With these two problems seemingly fixed, what (besides the bus) do you think needs to be implemented into the design of the PB? I mean, I know very little about what the differences between G5 and G4 will present as far as the other parts, but it would seem to me that they don't have to replace everything in the PB just becasue its a next gen processor. Am I wrong about this, or does Lanbrown actually know about as much as me?
Rincewind42
macrumors 6502a
Your right in that there is little that _has_ to change, but there is likely a lot that will change. Of course the good news here is that Apple has had all the components except the CPU under their control for the entire time. The CPU is the only thing that Apple simply had to wait for to make a PBG5. Yes, they would almost certainly need to do a process shrink for the system controller - but you can bet that Apple was already working on that design simultaneously with the 130nm part because they knew that IBM was working on a 90nm process. And the moment IBM started sampling on that process, you can bet that Apple was too. There is no reason to think that anything that Apple needed to process shrink for the PBG5 couldn't have been worked on simultaneously with the 970FX. So for all the reality checks that people seem to be claiming, here's one: Nobody is waiting for anybody to design the technologies they need for the future of their products. Apple knew that IBM was working on the 970FX, so they work on their system controller in step and so on we go. If Apple decides that it's time to do the PBG5, they could probably have it by May. If they decide they need to do more work, then they do more work. But you can bet that Apple hasn't been sitting on the side lines saying "The 970FX isn't done yet, so lets not bother working on the PBG5" - no, you can bet there are lots of PBG5 prototypes roaming around the Apple Campus right this moment.
Re: Xmac
why do people keep saying this.
IT hasn't happened with the gamecube it wno'thappen with the xbox 2. it just isn't.
why do people keep saying this.
IT hasn't happened with the gamecube it wno'thappen with the xbox 2. it just isn't.
Present PB's have a 167Mhz bus. The G5 would have a much faster bus. The bus alone would require a new chipset. The faster the bus, the more power will be required, that shortens the runtime down and since it requires more power, it will generate more heat. Second, I can't see Apple using the same case for the G5 as they did for the G4. So a new case will need to be designed. Maybe Apple wants to one up the competition with a 20" display. I highly doubt that, as it would be one very big notebook. Apple would probably want to put HT in it as well. That is something the current PB does not have. There might be some delays in other technologies that Apple wants to put in it that are not quite done yet. Maybe they wanted to out HT2 in it as the next clean slate design will be 18 or so months down the road. In April, SATA drives are expected to be available in volume. Maybe Apple has decided to be the first manufacturer or one of the first to offer SATA on their products. Right now only the PM G5 has it. They could use one SATA bus for both the optical drive and HD with no adverse effects. This would go for the iMac as well. If you think you will see a G5 based PB with the same features as the G4 version, you will be very wrong. If we knew what Apple was planning (feature wise), that would help with a timetable. If they were thinking of SATA drive, Fujitsu won't have them available until April, but samples are available now. If Apple wants to offer SATA, then they must wait. If not, then that can't be the holdup. The chipset at 90-nm could be the problem as well. Very few companies are offering 90-nm parts in volume. Maybe there is a chipset design problem that is being worked out right now. As I stated in a previous post, most companies have used an existing design and moved it to 90-nm. Ti has with their OMAP line, Sun with the SPARC (even though it's not available), IBM with the 970. Intel went with a new design and so far, it's late by almost two months. The chipset could be a new design and given that a new process always has some bugs to work out (ask Intel), that's why companies use an existing design first. It's a benchmark to when they run into a problem. They know it's not the design, but the process.
If IBM can supply Apple with enough 970FX processors right now, then there is absolutely no reason why a G5 based PB hasn't been announced except for a different problem. It's not like Apple isn't afraid to announce something that won't be available for a few months, G5 PM's and the 17" PB are two examples. So Apple obviously hasn't announced them for a reason. It's either that the volume production isn't high enough for Apple at this time or there are other problems. See first paragraph for examples.
I undoubtedly know more then you do. There are some who jump at every announcement to say that new updates are coming and since [insert announcement here] is out, updates will be coming. HT2 is a good example. HT2 is announced, new PM's will be announced shortly. So far, nothing. Why, because they probably won't use HT2 at this time.
You are basing your assumption that IBM and Apple were moving at the same pace. IBM could have completed theirs earlier than expected. Apple could have taken longer than expected. It could have been a combination of the two or just one. Very few products are on the 90-nm process. Quite a few are being sampled on it, but very little in volume.
I didn't see where anyone was claiming Apple hasn't done anything about a PB G5.
IBM and Apple
IBM ( I'm Becoming Macintosh) and Apple look so good together these days, I wonder at what price Apple investors would 'bite' if IBM made an offer to 'buy' the fruit company?
IBM ( I'm Becoming Macintosh) and Apple look so good together these days, I wonder at what price Apple investors would 'bite' if IBM made an offer to 'buy' the fruit company?
daveL
macrumors 68020
Guess you didn't catch this thread:
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/02/20040211102254.shtml
Unfortunately, the article, which was an interview with an IBM official, was pulled within hours of it's release. The main points were:
1) IBM has a 95% first mask success rate for ASICS they design, while their foundry clients' designs come in around 5%, and
2) IBM was about to delivery volume of their first SOC on the 90 nm process to Apple.
Here's a partial quote (Reeves is the IBM person):
"IBM is about to deliver its very first volume production of an SOC on 90nm, said Reeves. This will be a design for Apple."
AMD is selling 64 bit notebooks NOW!
With a faster bus now!
I think if VIA can produce a 64 bit motherboard for a notebook, Apple should be able to as well.
With a faster bus now!
I think if VIA can produce a 64 bit motherboard for a notebook, Apple should be able to as well.
First, if you are going to be pompous do it correctly. You undoubtedly know more THAN we do. Second, I think that you are exactly right. If Apple had even the slightest hopes that it could release a PB G5 in spring, or even early summer, it would have said that. Instead, Jobs said he hopes to have one by the end of 2004. I have a hard time believing that he would say that and then release one a month later. I also have a hard time seeing a six-month old laptop continue selling at its initial price with absolutely no upgrades. Either a price drop or an upgraded G4 will come before a PB G5.
http://www.e4me.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_M6805
Now, the story here is, that a 64bit laptop is available. But, it's a desktop replacement type laptop. i.e. it's hot with short battery life.
So, the question is, would Apple produce this type of machine? The current lineup of powerbooks says, no. I think this is a mistake.
Apple should, ( elect me to the board! ), co-produce G4 and G5 laptops. Until, the G5 laptop can be run as a "real laptop" and not just a Desktop Replacement.
Give us the choice.
We will decide if we want a cool running G4 or a hotter, faster G5.
Now, the story here is, that a 64bit laptop is available. But, it's a desktop replacement type laptop. i.e. it's hot with short battery life.
So, the question is, would Apple produce this type of machine? The current lineup of powerbooks says, no. I think this is a mistake.
Apple should, ( elect me to the board! ), co-produce G4 and G5 laptops. Until, the G5 laptop can be run as a "real laptop" and not just a Desktop Replacement.
Give us the choice.
We will decide if we want a cool running G4 or a hotter, faster G5.
Rincewind42
macrumors 6502a
Why would you think that? If things go better than they expect, you can bet they will release sooner than later. But if something goes horribly wrong, then they will be releasing later rather than sooner. By saying he hopes to do it by the end of the year, he pretty much gives a huge leeway in when it happens without killing sales of the PBG4 altogether. If Jobs has said "sure, by spring 2004" PBG4 sales would be tanking right now. And then if in April Apple released a speed bumped G4, no one would buy it thinking that PBG5 must still be right around the corner. Whereas by saying end of 2004, they can release next week, or Dec 25 and neither affect current sales, nor have egg on their face if they fail to meet their "deadline".
digitalbiker
macrumors 65816
LanBrown is a troll!
If he thinks that power consumption and heat aren't important in a clustered super computer configuration then he most certainly does not know more than us.
One of the major problems facing intel super computer clusters is power consumption and heat output. Once you get so many cpu's clustered maintaining steady power and keeping heat from crashing cpus becomes a major headache.
I could see where powertune technology could be very welcome by the Virginia tech group converting to xserve based clustering.
I think lanbrown is just trolling because his comments have been purely negative on a very positive news piece.
If he thinks that power consumption and heat aren't important in a clustered super computer configuration then he most certainly does not know more than us.
One of the major problems facing intel super computer clusters is power consumption and heat output. Once you get so many cpu's clustered maintaining steady power and keeping heat from crashing cpus becomes a major headache.
I could see where powertune technology could be very welcome by the Virginia tech group converting to xserve based clustering.
I think lanbrown is just trolling because his comments have been purely negative on a very positive news piece.
So how do you know so much about PowerTune? I didn't see anywhere in the article where it said that using PowerTune adversly effected performance, or even that not using PowerTune was an option.
It sounds to me like from what I've read other places that PowerTune is a wholistic approach to reducing power consumption that has little to do with scaling core speeds and more to do with not powering parts of the chip that aren't being used.
It doesn't look like PowerTune is something that has to be enabled in the OS. Until IBM's presentation, my guess is that saying you can turn off PowerTune is like saying you can "turn off" SOI if the computer doesn't need it.
It sounds to me like from what I've read other places that PowerTune is a wholistic approach to reducing power consumption that has little to do with scaling core speeds and more to do with not powering parts of the chip that aren't being used.
It doesn't look like PowerTune is something that has to be enabled in the OS. Until IBM's presentation, my guess is that saying you can turn off PowerTune is like saying you can "turn off" SOI if the computer doesn't need it.
Re: LanBrown is a troll!
Try again; I've been here for sometime now. I am just adding a dose of reality. People have been talking about G5 PB's for months now. Whenever a scrap of news is released, guess what, G5 based PBs are on the way, or so they say.
Most server chips take much more power then the 970FX does. The Power4+ uses 35 watts at 1.2GHz. That's higher then the 970FX, which is at a higher clock speed.
Intel is a different story; they are new to the big iron game. Companies like Sun, IBM, Cray, Fujitsu, etc. have been in that game for a longtime and don't have cooling issues. Intel is making some very hot processors these days.
How would PowerTune help them? They are constantly crunching numbers. No rest for those processors.
Try again; I've been here for sometime now. I am just adding a dose of reality. People have been talking about G5 PB's for months now. Whenever a scrap of news is released, guess what, G5 based PBs are on the way, or so they say.
Most server chips take much more power then the 970FX does. The Power4+ uses 35 watts at 1.2GHz. That's higher then the 970FX, which is at a higher clock speed.
Intel is a different story; they are new to the big iron game. Companies like Sun, IBM, Cray, Fujitsu, etc. have been in that game for a longtime and don't have cooling issues. Intel is making some very hot processors these days.
How would PowerTune help them? They are constantly crunching numbers. No rest for those processors.
Because if something is off, you cant use it until its ready. Data in the pipeline will have to momentarily wait and the CPU spends most of the time waiting for data.
Power management is not something new to chips. Just because it's built-in doesn't mean it must be used. Software can control PM features though. PM is a combination of hardware and software. If the fp is off and a request comes in, it now has to be turned on. That will create a delay.
Photorun
macrumors 65816
Re: Re: LanBrown is a troll!
Here here and correct. Worse-so for Intel, their process, to use a non-technical term... sucks. Basically they're the Microsoft of chip makers, bloated and buggy, cheaply made with haphazard design. AMD is kinda like the Apple of x86 chips, really good company, not much marketing push, and of course people, especially peecee lusers, are an ignorant lot, and think Microshaft and Insmell are synonymous with "computer." But you're talking about server chips, yes, heat is an issue... but heat is something the server chips makers have addressed and know how to, better than Intel does... amen.
And LanBrown is most certainly not a troll.
Here here and correct. Worse-so for Intel, their process, to use a non-technical term... sucks. Basically they're the Microsoft of chip makers, bloated and buggy, cheaply made with haphazard design. AMD is kinda like the Apple of x86 chips, really good company, not much marketing push, and of course people, especially peecee lusers, are an ignorant lot, and think Microshaft and Insmell are synonymous with "computer." But you're talking about server chips, yes, heat is an issue... but heat is something the server chips makers have addressed and know how to, better than Intel does... amen.
And LanBrown is most certainly not a troll.