More 90nm PowerPC G5 Details?

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,993
11,262
Appleinsider claims to have more details about the 90nm PowerPC 970.

The new chip is being referred to as the PowerPC 970FX - which is said to provide lower power consumption as well as previously referenced PowerTune technology.

Appleinsider also resolves previous contradictory reports by reporting that the updated PowerMac subsystems (533 DDR II, 1.5GHz Bus) and the January 2004 PowerMac updates are to be one in the same. Previous reports pointed to March 2004 for the subsystem upgrades, while pointing to speedbumped PowerMacs in January.
 

AmigoMac

macrumors 68020
Aug 5, 2003
2,063
0
l'Allemagne
Ohhh mama mia!

I can see a G5 PB before X-mas 2004 ...
Hope to get my sweet dream soon.
Give the world a taste of power.
 

pgwalsh

macrumors 68000
Jun 21, 2002
1,639
218
New Zealand
Originally posted by Wonder Boy
haha. actually they'd buy me the computer just so i would stay!
there you go.. Then move out a month later... and say, oops, I lied. hehehehehehehehe
 

MacandCheese

macrumors newbie
Dec 1, 2003
12
0
Oregon
Good thing I didnt buy the 1.8 Duallie

2.6 Ghz of porn-crunching power is definitely something to wait for. Finally I will have the ability to render a 3D version of my camel so I can ride it while playing Halo!! hehehe
 

Attachments

AmigoMac

macrumors 68020
Aug 5, 2003
2,063
0
l'Allemagne
Someone else is moving...

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
haha. actually they'd buy me the computer just so i would stay!
If his parents get that great machine, this boy will move his parents out... wouldn't he need space for the 30" display?.:p ;)
 

willmg

macrumors member
Aug 25, 2003
93
0
MA
Correct Me IF I Am Wrong

With a 1.25+GHz bus what ram would equate to full bus utilization? DDR 533 is 1066 efective speed right, so I guess with dual channel that gets around 2132MHz effective? So its fast enough but isnt DDR 533 really expensive and isn't most of it is still CAS 3 with high timings, which actually performs worse than slightly slower memory with faster latency? Anyone know anything about DDR2/3 availibilty by Febuary? I thought it was just recently that standards were even set for both of these formats for ram.
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2003
11,226
4,078
Bay Area
I don't understand... I thought that the bus was intrinsically linked to the processor in the G5. How could there be a bus increase to 1.5 Ghz unless the processor hit 3 ghz?
 

visor

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2003
341
0
in bed
very good

I'd sure like to see the 90nm's
It a) allows for higher frequency, and
b) uses less power at lower frequencies.
Now, the current G5 is obviously too hot for the PB's but a 1.3 GHz 90nmG5 would probably make a good mobile processor.
It'll be interesting to trace.
 

dongmin

macrumors 68000
Jan 3, 2002
1,708
0
Originally posted by QCassidy352
I don't understand... I thought that the bus was intrinsically linked to the processor in the G5. How could there be a bus increase to 1.5 Ghz unless the processor hit 3 ghz?
well if you had actually bothered to read the appleinsider report, it says up to 1.5 ghz. So not necessarily 3.0 ghz now but it can support it if need be. What I'm curious about is whether Apple will be able to get to 3.0 ghz with the 970fx or will they need to bring out the 980. My bet is for the former.
 

illumin8

macrumors 6502
Apr 20, 2003
427
0
East Coast, US
Don't expect a G5 PowerBook

Originally posted by ALoLA
Does low power consumption = G5 powerbook? :)
I think we can safely put that rumor to rest for the next 6 months or so at least. If you read the article, you'll find this little nugget:
Appleinsider excerpt
Although the PowerPC 970FX makes great strides in the realm of power consumption, it is still hungry compared to the rest of the PowerPC family, one source said. At the lowest -- albeit unknown -- clock-speed, the PowerPC 970FX dissipates approximately 12-Watts. Preliminary tests conducted earlier in the year on a 2.5GHz PowerPC 970FX G5, built around the 90nm process, showed the processor to dissipate 62-Watts. For comparison, a chip of equal clock frequency, which was manufactured on IBM's current 130nm process, dissipated a considerable 96 watts.
Looking at the power consumption, 12 watts at idle, and 62-watts running at 2.5 ghz., this chip is more efficient, but still a monster. The 130nm chips are pulling about the same power as a Pentium IV desktop chip is, so that explains why they didn't want to stuff it into a PowerBook.

I think Apple will wait until they can get a chip that only uses 10-20 watts of power before they put it in a PowerBook. The only other option is to clock it down to a slower speed like 1 ghz. where it would theoretically still pull a respectable 30-40 watts and you'd be stuck with a machine that's about the same speed as the current G4 PowerBooks, but a hell of a lot thicker, heavier, and only 2 hours of battery life.
 

leet1

macrumors 6502
Nov 3, 2003
365
0
Originally posted by the_mole1314
I bet the PPC will get to 4ghz before the P4, AMD, or an X86 chip will (for the consumer market)!
lol, how much you want to bet? :D
 

greenstork

macrumors 6502a
Jan 5, 2003
617
0
Seattle,WA
Originally posted by the_mole1314
I bet the PPC will get to 4ghz before the P4, AMD, or an X86 chip will (for the consumer market)!
I'm afriad you'll probably lose that bet. Intel would only have to push their processors .8 GHz to reach 4Ghz while Apple would have to jump 2 GHz and at the current rate of speed bumps, could be expected no earlier than late 2005.

I do think that IBM will surpass Intel in real world computer speed with the Dual 3.0 GHz machine. The Opteron however, and future AMD products, might not be so easy to topple.
 

daveL

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2003
2,425
0
Montana
Re: Don't expect a G5 PowerBook

Originally posted by illumin8
I think we can safely put that rumor to rest for the next 6 months or so at least. If you read the article, you'll find this little nugget:

Looking at the power consumption, 12 watts at idle, and 62-watts running at 2.5 ghz., this chip is more efficient, but still a monster. The 130nm chips are pulling about the same power as a Pentium IV desktop chip is, so that explains why they didn't want to stuff it into a PowerBook.

I think Apple will wait until they can get a chip that only uses 10-20 watts of power before they put it in a PowerBook. The only other option is to clock it down to a slower speed like 1 ghz. where it would theoretically still pull a respectable 30-40 watts and you'd be stuck with a machine that's about the same speed as the current G4 PowerBooks, but a hell of a lot thicker, heavier, and only 2 hours of battery life.
It says nothing about 12 watts at idle. It says 12 watts at some unknown lower frequency. And the 62 watt number came from an earlier prototype, not the current production process.
 

illumin8

macrumors 6502
Apr 20, 2003
427
0
East Coast, US
Re: Correct Me IF I Am Wrong

Originally posted by willmg
So its fast enough but isnt DDR 533 really expensive and isn't most of it is still CAS 3 with high timings, which actually performs worse than slightly slower memory with faster latency?
CAS 3 just gives you slightly higher latency. One thing you should be aware of is that unless you buy an OEM Intel 875P motherboard and build your own system, you won't be able to take advantage of CAS 2 or 2.5 memory. Every system manufacturer that has implemented dual channel DDR400 memory so far has locked the memory controller at CAS 3 just to ensure compatibility with all 3rd party memory.

I know this because I have a Dell Dimension 8300 (Intel 875P chipset) and it performs exactly the same in Sandra's memory benchmarks no matter what memory I put in it.

As far as the G5 goes, I know this because on barefeats, he benchmarked both CAS 2 and CAS 3 memory and got the exact same results.

I did have a question that maybe someone could answer though: Is DDR-2 533 the same as PC4200 memory? PC4200 memory (533 mhz.) is available in a 1GB kit (2x 512MB sticks) for only $168 according to Pricewatch. That's not too much more than PC3200, which is $124 for a 1GB kit.
 

greenstork

macrumors 6502a
Jan 5, 2003
617
0
Seattle,WA
Re: Re: Don't expect a G5 PowerBook

Originally posted by daveL
It says nothing about 12 watts at idle. It says 12 watts at some unknown lower frequency. And the 62 watt number came from an earlier prototype, not the current production process.
Actually the article says that 12 W is at the lowest possible clock speed on the chip. He is extrapolating that this is at idle for a scalable chip speed, and correctly so.
 

illumin8

macrumors 6502
Apr 20, 2003
427
0
East Coast, US
Re: Re: Don't expect a G5 PowerBook

Originally posted by daveL
It says nothing about 12 watts at idle. It says 12 watts at some unknown lower frequency. And the 62 watt number came from an earlier prototype, not the current production process.
Ok, but do you agree that the chances of seeing a G5 PowerBook in January are pretty slim, based on the numbers you've seen? My guess would be G5 PowerBook (rev. A) first seen next September/October at the earliest. Most likely in 1 year from January.
 

mdntcallr

macrumors 65816
Aug 1, 2000
1,469
176
Re: Don't expect a G5 PowerBook

Originally posted by illumin8


I think Apple will wait until they can get a chip that only uses 10-20 watts of power before they put it in a PowerBook. The only other option is to clock it down to a slower speed like 1 ghz. where it would theoretically still pull a respectable 30-40 watts and you'd be stuck with a machine that's about the same speed as the current G4 PowerBooks, but a hell of a lot thicker, heavier, and only 2 hours of battery life.

All i care about is getting a G5 powerbook with a fast processor when it is plugged in.

Then when it is on batteries, it can be slowed down. that makes sense.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.