I don't understand why heat even matters (to a point). You can get heatsinks that are so cold, they make water freeze on contact. Just so you know, water takes about an two hours for an icecube to freeze a 0 degrees (the normal freezer tempurature)
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.
Motorola at 90-nanometers
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jelloshotsrule
macrumors G3
DavPeanut:
Hmm, you seem to have a serious flaw in your thinking. Heat sinks do not do anything but conduct heat from the hot side to the cool side.
In order to cool below air temperature, we need refrigeration or a peltier cooler, but in both cases more heat is actually generated than cold. The big deal is that the heat is outside and the cold is inside... think of a "heat pump." To prove this to yourself, try cooling your house by leaving your fridge open 24x7. 🙂 Or try to cool your house with the A/C unit's cooling fins inside. 🙂
Hmm, you seem to have a serious flaw in your thinking. Heat sinks do not do anything but conduct heat from the hot side to the cool side.
In order to cool below air temperature, we need refrigeration or a peltier cooler, but in both cases more heat is actually generated than cold. The big deal is that the heat is outside and the cold is inside... think of a "heat pump." To prove this to yourself, try cooling your house by leaving your fridge open 24x7. 🙂 Or try to cool your house with the A/C unit's cooling fins inside. 🙂
This announcement sounds all very nice. I just checked, and it was in April 2001 that Mot announced their 0.13 micron process, about a year and a half ago. As far as I am aware, the latest 7455 chips used in the powermacs are still 0.18. The mythical 7470 we were all waiting for was supposed to be fabricated at 0.13 still havn't arrived. Are any of the chips used in macs fabbed at 0.13? Are ANY Mot chips at 0.13? At this rate, I am not holding my breath for 0.09 G4 any time soon.
biotech:
Didn't realize Moto had announced it so long ago... yeah I'm getting annoyed at this low-tech 180nm crap, time to get to 130nm before Intel makes it to 90nm!
I would not be especially surprised if the 1.25's were 130nm chips, but I am betting they are not. 130nm could give Apple headroom for a while.
Didn't realize Moto had announced it so long ago... yeah I'm getting annoyed at this low-tech 180nm crap, time to get to 130nm before Intel makes it to 90nm!
I would not be especially surprised if the 1.25's were 130nm chips, but I am betting they are not. 130nm could give Apple headroom for a while.
Moto or IBM
Moto or IBM
IBM or Moto
I hope it's IBM. Using Moto for low end would also work.
I hope it's not a Cyrix based X86 chip from IBM (Ha Ha).
Apple may move to IBM in a year or two.
Moto may produce a .09 G5 this year.
Who knows?
Steve knows.
Interesting how the article said the chips would be ready by the end of this year. The G4 has been milked way past it's life cycle. It's old technology. Buttom line....we need something new. Soon. I'm holding old for the new chip whatever it is. Not an overclocked G4. Duals are nice but you gain more from an upgraded processor.
Moto or IBM
IBM or Moto
I hope it's IBM. Using Moto for low end would also work.
I hope it's not a Cyrix based X86 chip from IBM (Ha Ha).
Apple may move to IBM in a year or two.
Moto may produce a .09 G5 this year.
Who knows?
Steve knows.
Interesting how the article said the chips would be ready by the end of this year. The G4 has been milked way past it's life cycle. It's old technology. Buttom line....we need something new. Soon. I'm holding old for the new chip whatever it is. Not an overclocked G4. Duals are nice but you gain more from an upgraded processor.
Johnny7896:
It annoys me to no end that mud-slingers are calling the 1.25's overclocked in the absence of any evidence.
It annoys me to no end that mud-slingers are calling the 1.25's overclocked in the absence of any evidence.
solvs
macrumors 603
Thank you.
I was just about to say that. For all we know it could be a 1.25 GHz 7470, or 7460, or 7500. Even if it is a 745?, that doesn't mean it's an OC'ed 1 GHz chip, anymore than a 1 GHZ is an OC'ed 933 or 867. A chip is rated at what it's rated. Maybe what people mean is that they don't want another 7455, but that's not how it's coming out. And as ARN pointed out, there is no official 7470. Yet.
But if the 1.25s are OC'ed, then there's gonna be some trouble.
Literally. Do you know how bad you can damage a chip like the G4 if you OC it? Even with the cooling. It's been done, but you're gonna have a lot of problems and failures. I don't think Apple would do that, desperate as they are. Do you?
I don't.
Besides, there are plenty of other things to complain about.
From what I understand, (for right or wrong) the 1.25 chips are OC'ed 1ghz chips. This brings up an interesting thought. The timing of all this development on IBM's part is almost too perfect. Firstly, Mot doesn't deliver on the apollo for macworld, then doesn't deliver for the new PM announcement and Apple is forced to OC their current chips. Meanwhile, IBM announces a Power4 offshoot. Hmmm....It looks like Mot doesn't want to spend money and resources developing for Apple if they're just going to bail and go with the Power4. I sure hope that this chip is everything that people think it is. Many mac faithful that I know are starting to grumble about performance, and are adding Wintel machines to their collection.
Show me the Hardware!
Show me the Hardware!
Well, the Apollo was delivered in the dual 1Ghz chips in January 2002, so I'm not sure what to make of the rest of your post. There is no way Apple is overclocking chips. Companies get sued and lose for that sort of thing.
Kethoticus
macrumors 6502
"No details on how this will influence PowerPC production."
I can tell ya how: It won't.
When Apple has to deliver overclocked chips as upgrades to the line, something is seriously wrong.
Motorola sucks. They're hearts are not into it. Or maybe it's management crap I've read about. Maybe it's departmental egos and other personality nonsense getting in the way. I don't know. Perhaps they're miffed at Apple for canning cloning. Who knows.
But what I am certain of is that Apple's future does not include Motorola, that is unless Apple plans on delivering machines that will eventually be 5-10x slower than its Wintel competition.
I can tell ya how: It won't.
When Apple has to deliver overclocked chips as upgrades to the line, something is seriously wrong.
Motorola sucks. They're hearts are not into it. Or maybe it's management crap I've read about. Maybe it's departmental egos and other personality nonsense getting in the way. I don't know. Perhaps they're miffed at Apple for canning cloning. Who knows.
But what I am certain of is that Apple's future does not include Motorola, that is unless Apple plans on delivering machines that will eventually be 5-10x slower than its Wintel competition.
Why would IBM bother to put Acti-vec like capacities on its chips...
Only Apple uses it.....
DJMCAVE
Only Apple uses it.....
DJMCAVE
You don't have to be an extremist to notice Motorolas long, long history of too little too late, merely observant.
Like that two by four that just hit you in the head.
On the subject of overclocking, Apple's recent Powermac updates have been disappointing and predictable because of overclocking attempts on the previous range.
First the 733 Mhz G4 was OC'd to 867 Mhz, that was the next speed bump from Apple.
Then the 867 Mhz G4 was OC'd to 1 Ghz and Apple brought out the dual Ghz when the next range came out.
Earlier this year someone overclocked a 1 Ghz G4 to 1.2 Ghz, now Apple have presumably got enough chips that work at 1.25 Ghz because less of them are failing at that multiplier setting.
These are speed increases we've seen since the PowerPC 7450 chips appeared in powermacs :
867 Mhz (133Mhz x 6.5)
1 Ghz (133Mhz x 7.5)
1.2 Ghz (133Mhz x 9) - Overclocking attempt
1.25 Ghz (167Mhz x 7.5)
If there really is a predictable pattern here, maybe this will be the next powermac early next year :
1.5 Ghz (167Mhz x 9)
maybe even
1.75 Ghz (167 x 10.5)
if we're lucky.
I'm not suggesting that Apple overclock at all, infact like all companies, they effectively underclock, If they have a bunch of 1Ghz chips that fail at their rated speed they'll just lower the clock speed till they run stable and they use them in lower range models while saving money on the cost of the chips. That's why overclocking is possible in the first place, the odd chip will slip through that works at a higher than rated clock speed and someone will be able to overclock it with or without elaborate cooling depending on how brave they are.
A clockspeed increase of 133 - 250 Mhz every revision isn't going to be much use as far as being a worthy upgrade, If you're already using a 1.25 Ghz G4, why bother with a 1.5 Ghz chip anyway ? At best it's only going to be 20% faster, at least when they jumped from 500 - 733 Mhz it was a theoretical 46% speed increase. The faster a chip gets, the slower the progress of it's potential speed increases become. Look at the Pentium 4, if you'd bought a 2.2 Ghz P4 in January the new 2.8 Ghz P4 might not be too appealing for the 27% extra speed you might get out of it.
The dual cpu G4s seem a really sweet deal for anyone who bought the 800Mhz entry level model earlier in the year but generally speaking the mac is heading down the same road as the PC as far as clock speeds go, it will hit a point where no one will want to upgrade their Mac or PC for a whole year because what they already have is fast enough and the new chips arn't going to justify the upgrade cost. That's why motorola's advancements in fabrication could be a positive thing, they could ramp up the clock speed quite conciderably.
First the 733 Mhz G4 was OC'd to 867 Mhz, that was the next speed bump from Apple.
Then the 867 Mhz G4 was OC'd to 1 Ghz and Apple brought out the dual Ghz when the next range came out.
Earlier this year someone overclocked a 1 Ghz G4 to 1.2 Ghz, now Apple have presumably got enough chips that work at 1.25 Ghz because less of them are failing at that multiplier setting.
These are speed increases we've seen since the PowerPC 7450 chips appeared in powermacs :
867 Mhz (133Mhz x 6.5)
1 Ghz (133Mhz x 7.5)
1.2 Ghz (133Mhz x 9) - Overclocking attempt
1.25 Ghz (167Mhz x 7.5)
If there really is a predictable pattern here, maybe this will be the next powermac early next year :
1.5 Ghz (167Mhz x 9)
maybe even
1.75 Ghz (167 x 10.5)
if we're lucky.
I'm not suggesting that Apple overclock at all, infact like all companies, they effectively underclock, If they have a bunch of 1Ghz chips that fail at their rated speed they'll just lower the clock speed till they run stable and they use them in lower range models while saving money on the cost of the chips. That's why overclocking is possible in the first place, the odd chip will slip through that works at a higher than rated clock speed and someone will be able to overclock it with or without elaborate cooling depending on how brave they are.
A clockspeed increase of 133 - 250 Mhz every revision isn't going to be much use as far as being a worthy upgrade, If you're already using a 1.25 Ghz G4, why bother with a 1.5 Ghz chip anyway ? At best it's only going to be 20% faster, at least when they jumped from 500 - 733 Mhz it was a theoretical 46% speed increase. The faster a chip gets, the slower the progress of it's potential speed increases become. Look at the Pentium 4, if you'd bought a 2.2 Ghz P4 in January the new 2.8 Ghz P4 might not be too appealing for the 27% extra speed you might get out of it.
The dual cpu G4s seem a really sweet deal for anyone who bought the 800Mhz entry level model earlier in the year but generally speaking the mac is heading down the same road as the PC as far as clock speeds go, it will hit a point where no one will want to upgrade their Mac or PC for a whole year because what they already have is fast enough and the new chips arn't going to justify the upgrade cost. That's why motorola's advancements in fabrication could be a positive thing, they could ramp up the clock speed quite conciderably.
The point has been made before and needs to be made again. Even if IBM's chip is destined for Apple desktops it isn't likely for the mobile market.
There is really no reason to suspect Motorola won't introduce an improved architecture with the new process and a replacement of the MPX bus with an on-chip memory controller and RIO. Really that and the addition of a second FPU and the G4 is a very nice chip especially in the low end and mobile markets.
This doesn't have to be an IBM or Motorola decision and I would be very very surprised if Apple was thinking of it that way.
Can there be some sort of definition here?.. multiplying a particular bus speed to reach a particular cpu clock speed is not overclocking, just multiplying. Overclocking is speeding up the chip's (in this case cpu) clock over what it has been reliably tested at. The domain of overclockers are home enthusiasts, not chip and PC manufacturers. Chip manufacturers invariably rate a model below what they can push it with the best quality chips capable of much better ratings.
It would seem to me that the price and delayed availability of the 1.25Ghz G4 are the best of the crop of the 7450 and so can be run reliably at a better rating but are a much lower yield. Apple is trying to milk the last of the .18 micron chips, perhaps to clear inventory, prove the viability of their buying power to make the desktop powerpc worth developing.
Increasing the number of cpu's per model is a good way for apple to sell more overall cpu's and possibly increase their generational lifespan.
It would seem to me that the price and delayed availability of the 1.25Ghz G4 are the best of the crop of the 7450 and so can be run reliably at a better rating but are a much lower yield. Apple is trying to milk the last of the .18 micron chips, perhaps to clear inventory, prove the viability of their buying power to make the desktop powerpc worth developing.
Increasing the number of cpu's per model is a good way for apple to sell more overall cpu's and possibly increase their generational lifespan.
dude...haven't we all known this for a month or more??? im pretty sure the post your replying to SAID exactly what u said.. What's the name of the vector processing unit btw?
solvs
macrumors 603
Again, thank you.
Overclocking and upclocking (or multiplying, or what ever you want to call it) are 2 completely different things.
They may have taken the 1,000 MHz with the 133.33 FSB (7.5 multipier) and clocked it at 1250 MHz with a 166.67 (also 7.5 multipier), but that doesn't make it OC'ed. It's rated to run at what it's rated to run. The G4 had been rated to run a 166.67 FSB for awhile.
For all we know the 1 GHz chip was underclocked because Apple didn't have a 166.67 FSB yet.
Though, that's not very likely.
doesn't ibm already make a fantastic mobile processor (the 750fx or whatever)?? I have heard they're developing basically the same thing with their version of Altivec slapped on their. These chips (from what i've heard on the boards) can run a bus speed of 200 mhz and can be overclocked via software (apple's way of making it the consumer model)...and can run mhz for mhz with a G4 (not the case with previous g3's) so my question is...what do we need from motorala with the intro of a power4 lite?
Actually the G3 can't keep up with the G4 except by being on a fabrication technology a generation ahead of the G4's. The G4 core is actually superior to the G3 core though given the generational differences. It's successor also won't appear until late next year at the earliest. Although you could easily fit that into a roadmap and just use current G4s until then.
Without a lot more details at the executive level it's impossible to say for certain which would be the best option and that's the point, this would be an executive decision not a technical one. Unless Apple is going to pick up some worthy benefit by switching entirely to IBM chips they are better off diversifying their supply and keeping the G4 evolving. They can drop Motorola later if they want since IBM is planning to make their chips anyway.
IBM is already more advanced
Well, for all you IBM fans out there, they are already building a fab to make sub 0.10 micron chips... and it will be online before the end of this year(http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20001011S0021 ). This marks a serious commitment to chip development for IBM. Thus, if the IBM chips do again make their way into Apple machines, the preformance should be excellent (desktop or laptop). Also, not that while IBM makes one of the worlds most powerful chips (the Power4) which is one of the largest (680 million transistors) and most power hungry (500 watts), the also make some of the worlds best power conserving chips (G3). So, I would not write off an IBM-based Apple laptop. Furthermore, Wintel companies are using P4 desktop chips (albeit not entirely reliable as a laptop preformer) to boost their laptop preformace. This seriously reduces battery life, but it does provide extra power. The P4, for reference uses around twice the power of a G4. There is therefore no indication that if a chip came out that was plentiful enough and could be squeezed into a laptop that Apple would not do so.
Of note though, is that Motorola has been producing chip for Apple from the beginning, so this would mark a serious departure from the norm and is not necessarily likely. I would expect to see moderate preformance increases from Motorola, becuase their primary target is network equipment and the demand for such has fallen lately.
Well, for all you IBM fans out there, they are already building a fab to make sub 0.10 micron chips... and it will be online before the end of this year(http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20001011S0021 ). This marks a serious commitment to chip development for IBM. Thus, if the IBM chips do again make their way into Apple machines, the preformance should be excellent (desktop or laptop). Also, not that while IBM makes one of the worlds most powerful chips (the Power4) which is one of the largest (680 million transistors) and most power hungry (500 watts), the also make some of the worlds best power conserving chips (G3). So, I would not write off an IBM-based Apple laptop. Furthermore, Wintel companies are using P4 desktop chips (albeit not entirely reliable as a laptop preformer) to boost their laptop preformace. This seriously reduces battery life, but it does provide extra power. The P4, for reference uses around twice the power of a G4. There is therefore no indication that if a chip came out that was plentiful enough and could be squeezed into a laptop that Apple would not do so.
Of note though, is that Motorola has been producing chip for Apple from the beginning, so this would mark a serious departure from the norm and is not necessarily likely. I would expect to see moderate preformance increases from Motorola, becuase their primary target is network equipment and the demand for such has fallen lately.