Motorola MPC7457 Summary

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
46,732
8,949
Architosh posts some details and speculation on Motorola's upcoming processors. Much of the information from this report as well as the afore mentioned German report appears to be have originated from a PDF (pulled) that was posted on Motorola's site. That particular document has since been pulled.

The essense is caputured by Architosh in this summary:

It appears from this road map that the next Motorola "G-something" processor will be a G4, its model number being MPC7457, with a MHz range between 867-1833MHz. This chip is based on a SOI (silicon on insulator), .13micron process and appears planned for sometime in 2003. The MPC7457-RM chip, planned for 2004 is more mysterious and includes RapidIO.
The article also attempts to pull together older rumors, and provides some unrealistic predictions of upcoming PowerMac releases.

Reference to the PDF was previously made in this thread with a screenshot of the since removed PDF.
 

gandalf55

macrumors 6502
Apr 13, 2001
343
0
boston
man - what the hell... information being pulled makes me think it's accurate. and now i think that moto officially has their lips tightly around the suck pipe. moore's law is going to skip apple i guess.
 

reyesmac

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
373
53
Central Texas
I am thinking we might not see a processor go above the 2 gig mark if it even reaches that. Does the IBM chip use Rapid IO? If it does, at least that will be a great thing to have.
 

rice_web

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
584
0
Minot, North Dakota
It's very possible that we'll see this chip used in new PowerMacs, which would likely be released on or around MWSF. 1.5GHz on a new 130nm manufacturing process would yield fun overclocking possibilities.
 

Scab Cake

macrumors member
Jul 26, 2001
81
0
Is it me or is the Mhz myth getting kinda depressing with this news? I know the G4 is an incredible chip that's really fast and efficient, but I feel like I'm riding on a dying horse. I was hoping that these companies were planning for chips of at least 2 Ghz for the end of 2003. Sometimes I wish they would at least lie about the future specs...oh wait.
 

reyesmac

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
373
53
Central Texas
Originally posted by Scab Cake
Is it me or is the Mhz myth getting kinda depressing with this news?
You're problem is that you are comparing the G4 to its competition. I did that once and was told to stop whining. What you need to do is just believe Apples hype and understand that since the G4 is not running on a PC motherboard, it can be any speed Apple wants it to be and still keep up with everything out there and is worth any premium they slap on it.
 

copperpipe

macrumors regular
Jul 9, 2002
127
0
no no, i know what your problem is..

your problem is that you're fixated on an overly simple solution, for your overly simple mind, which makes you a great target for advertising. Sheep, my friend, is what you become when you buy a product based on too simple an evaluation. You see, then the manufacturers can EXLPOIT your limited knowledge. Have you ever heard the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? Well, that's you buddy ol' pal. When purchasing a computer, or any product for that matter, the bottom line is QUALITY vs. PRICE. You see now that word QUALITY is not easy to put down into one thing. I know, I know, it gives you a headache to actually have to think sometimes, but trust me, learn this lesson and the QUALITY of your life will increase. So when it comes to comparing Apples to Dells, don't think "Megahertz=What the advertising keeps telling me to focus on=duh, that's what i'll do then, duh", think "I will live with this and spend much of my time on it, so I should truly enjoy the OS, it should be as fast as I can afford, it should be constructed well (or superbly in the case of Apple), and last but not least it should come from a company that I respect, and respects me as a consumer. That should help you get started my friend. Good luck!
 

GetSome681

macrumors regular
Feb 2, 2002
123
0
anxious

I'm extremely anxious to see what powermacs apple releases next. I've always been a mac fanatic, ever since my first mac (first computer) the apple IIgs. Anyways, while in college, I build a quick, quick PC...just b/c there were so many programs I needed to use, that just weren't written or available for the mac (industry specific progs). I'm out now, but I decided to redo my PC. I understand the value and quality of the Mac OS...but the PC that I built for $500 (only additional parts or things I was changing...I'd say total total would be closer to $800-900) comes extremely close to rivaling the value and quality of my mac. I don't want to turn this into a PC vs. Mac fight, b/c in my opinion, each has it's strong points...but seriously...PCs can be built cheap...but not cheap in the sense of quality of build, etc. Sure Winblows sucks...but it's hard to deny the speed of this machine...mainly it's hardware. Lots of people out there like to think that Apple is just on top of the world when it comes to making motherboards, etc. as they always trash the PC world on these topics. In reality, it comes close to the opposite.

I don't know what my point of this is...but I do know that when I compare my PC hardware to that of my Mac (or new macs even)...it's getting depressing. Sure my PC isn't as cool looking as the PMacs or any mac really...and sure Winblows blows...but honestly...I do get things done on it, and the hardware options out there are incredible. I really hope that Apple doesn't lose itself in the next year or so. I know Apple's not to blame (Moto is) as they don't produce the chips...and I'm not saying they should go x86 either...all I do know is that lately I find myself often wishing that I could run OS X on my PC.


Come on Moto...come on IBM...let's get some killer chips out!
 

dojothemouse

macrumors newbie
Oct 23, 2002
5
0
San Francisco, CA
Ok, I'm ignoring the mHz myth, and this still sucks.

If I'm reading this right, motorola wants us to keep using maxbus for at least the next year and a half.

Unless they give us a 128MB L3 cache, I don't wouldn't care if they *did* match x86 speeds. All you mHz myth weenies keep dissing the x86 for performance on pipeline flushes. Well, look at our performance on a cache miss. Jesus. Might as well send for the data via postal mail rather than maxbus.
 

GetSome681

macrumors regular
Feb 2, 2002
123
0
Re: Ok, I'm ignoring the mHz myth, and this still sucks.

Originally posted by dojothemouse
If I'm reading this right, motorola wants us to keep using maxbus for at least the next year and a half.

Unless they give us a 128MB L3 cache, I don't wouldn't care if they *did* match x86 speeds. All you mHz myth weenies keep dissing the x86 for performance on pipeline flushes. Well, look at our performance on a cache miss. Jesus. Might as well send for the data via postal mail rather than maxbus.

True...wasn't there some test results out that said the 1.25's didn't really outdo the 1 ghz's by too much...indicating that the bus might just not be enough for the chip..?? Maybe it was an old test, but that's sorta what I remember. So...that doesn't bode too well for a 1.8 ghz chip being worth very much in practical terms.
 

reyesmac

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
373
53
Central Texas
Why does Apple even NEED a fast CPU? Why cant they just include custom video hardware that lets you do real-time video effects like the high-end video import cards have? Or why don't they include something that makes 3D super fast? Or why not just use THE BEST video card on ALL mac models? That way, the processor can be slow, but video and 3D will be fast on all Macs? Thats pretty much all that needs to be fast, well, that and the Finder, but that would be sped up by the custom video hardware.
If they had something like that they could claim to be faster than the fastest pentium on all the important stuff. Who cares if i wont be able to rip a CD at 40x speed when I could play Quake on one monitor with crazy frame rates and watch a DVD on the other monitor with no skipping. The "Myth" wouldnt matter then.
If you say that would add cost to the Mac, who cares, you know they would make it more expensive if they could and even if they do it would still be worth it for real time video/3d/finder.
 

MOM

macrumors member
May 14, 2002
81
0
San Francisco
Re: Re: Ok, I'm ignoring the mHz myth, and this still sucks.

Originally posted by GetSome681



True...wasn't there some test results out that said the 1.25's didn't really outdo the 1 ghz's by too much...indicating that the bus might just not be enough for the chip..?? Maybe it was an old test, but that's sorta what I remember. So...that doesn't bode too well for a 1.8 ghz chip being worth very much in practical terms.

The reviews I saw suggested that the 1.25's were about 25% faster than the 1.0 chips, as expected. Its just that the new and the old 1.0 machines ran about the same. Thus, all the new DDR etc doesn't seem to result in much real world advantages (but the price for 1.0 G4s sure went down). MOM
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
I understand the value and quality of the Mac OS...but the PC that I built for $500 (only additional parts or things I was changing...I'd say total total would be closer to $800-900) comes extremely close to rivaling the value and quality of my mac. I don't want to turn this into a PC vs. Mac fight, b/c in my opinion, each has it's strong points...but seriously...PCs can be built cheap...but not cheap in the sense of quality of build, etc. Sure Winblows sucks...but it's hard to deny the speed of this machine...mainly it's hardware. Lots of people out there like to think that Apple is just on top of the world when it comes to making motherboards, etc. as they always trash the PC world on these topics. In reality, it comes close to the opposite.

I don't know what my point of this is...but I do know that when I compare my PC hardware to that of my Mac (or new macs even)...it's getting depressing. Sure my PC isn't as cool looking as the PMacs or any mac really...and sure Winblows blows...but honestly...I do get things done on it, and the hardware options out there are incredible. I really hope that Apple doesn't lose itself in the next year or so. I know Apple's not to blame (Moto is) as they don't produce the chips...and I'm not saying they should go x86 either...all I do know is that lately I find myself often wishing that I could run OS X on my PC.
You totally captured what I have been trying to say back in the IBM 970 details thread. What you say is exactly how I feel. I just bought a PC that I am going to be 10x happier on then a mac I would purchase for the same money ($600), and I still think macs are better, but you can get a very fast PC for a very good price. No can do with a mac. Sorry, try to ignore this post everyone, I just had to comment on it. And I don't want to change this into a Mac vs PC argument like on the IBM 970 details thread. If you want to argue PM me. :)
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
Re: anxious

Originally posted by GetSome681
I'm extremely anxious to see what powermacs apple releases next. I've always been a mac fanatic, ever since my first mac (first computer) the apple IIgs.
The Apple IIgs was an Apple II, not a Macintosh. The two lines were based on different processors and different operating systems, although System 6 did incorporate features from the Macintosh System 6.
Originally posted by GetSome681
...PCs can be built cheap...but not cheap in the sense of quality of build, etc. ....
You clearly have a different standard for quality of build than do I. The only Wintel manufacturer of note to even rival Apple in quality of build is IBM. Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway? Forget about it.
Originally posted by GetSome681
Sure my PC isn't as cool looking as the PMacs or any mac really...
Is that the only thing you can see as the Mac advantage?
Originally posted by GetSome681
and sure Winblows blows...but honestly...I do get things done on it, and the hardware options out there are incredible. I really hope that Apple doesn't lose itself in the next year or so. I know Apple's not to blame (Moto is) as they don't produce the chips...and I'm not saying they should go x86 either...all I do know is that lately I find myself often wishing that I could run OS X on my PC.


Come on Moto...come on IBM...let's get some killer chips out!
What you need to do is to stop the p*ssing contests with your Windows weenie friends. The microprocessor is just one part (or two parts in the case of duals) of a much more complicated system that is the computer. By fixating on the processor, you show a virtual total lack of understanding of what it takes to turn all of those parts into a harmonious whole.
 

GetSome681

macrumors regular
Feb 2, 2002
123
0
Re: Re: anxious

Originally posted by MisterMe

The Apple IIgs was an Apple II, not a Macintosh. The two lines were based on different processors and different operating systems, although System 6 did incorporate features from the Macintosh System 6.
Well I apologize that I didn't know this, and that I was only 8-10 at the time...forget.

You clearly have a different standard for quality of build than do I. The only Wintel manufacturer of note to even rival Apple in quality of build is IBM. Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway? Forget about it.
It's on some of these things that I wonder if other people have actually ever gone out and actually looked at PCs. Sure, most OTC (over-the-counter) PCs such as the Dells and the Gateways are definitely crap, however I was more referring to the average PC builder. The stereotypical PC builder has a case that's open, wires just everywhere, everything's a mess, things are falling apart, or coming loose...you know what I'm trying to say. It's most people's vision that the PC builder's computer is quite cheap, yet this isn't always the case. There are MANY cases, cables, setups, etc. out there that can yield a PC which rivals the build quality and neatness of setup (not coolness, rather organization of wires, hard drives, etc.) of the current Macs. You missed my point though...I was trying to say that they "rival" the macs...IMO Apple still has a lock-down on this category. Would I rather have my "computer components" in a PC case or an El Capitan...well besides the lack of optical drive space (MDD fixes that sorta)...it would be El Capitan all the way.

Is that the only thing you can see as the Mac advantage?
No, this goes along with the above...in terms of the overall effectiveness of the case. If you read my message...how many times do I say I love OS X...?? I guess my loving it isn't enough for it to be an advantage of the Mac..???


What you need to do is to stop the p*ssing contests with your Windows weenie friends. The microprocessor is just one part (or two parts in the case of duals) of a much more complicated system that is the computer. By fixating on the processor, you show a virtual total lack of understanding of what it takes to turn all of those parts into a harmonious whole.
I tried to make this obvious, but I guess I didn't really succeed. I'm not a Windows weenie, and honestly only have one of them, who I only use for info when I can't get things working on this h*llish of an operating system called WinXP...where things just sometimes aren't very intuititive. I do realize there are more benefits of a system than just it's cpu. Are you going to tell me though that the current Apple mobos are some great, great technological wonder that blow away the latest offerings from let's say ASUS? The fact that I have serial ata connections on my motherboard, firewire, onboard raid, needless to mention USB2, which I have no real use for at the present. Sure I can't get a serial ata drive yet, but it's nice to have those connections for when they're out soon, as it's specs have obviously been finalized, so heck...Apple should be able to put them on theirs as well, but they're not there. So what other parts are there....hmm...let's look at the ide channels. ATA100 on the new macs...wow, that's about great, running a two drive 0 raid on that with the newest SE drives can come close to saturating that...if not saturate it at times. Needless to mention you'd be hardpressed to find a PC without ATA133.

What about the ability to configure your system? What about memory settings? Can you change the aggressiveness of your memory system and its latency on the mac? Obviously that's another issue besides the cpu as well.

I could go on forever, but won't...b/c as I said..I'm not here to trash the mac, never have been, never will be. I'm just saying that I hope that Moto or IBM has some real light to bring to the platform soon. Obviously not all the fault lies with Apple, yet some does. They could have and still have a super great computer just waiting for us, yet with no powerpc cpu worthy enough for it just yet. Hopefully this won't be the situation in 2003. Enough of the PC flamewar...like I said...each has it's advantages. I also didn't annouce a winner in my opinion, so please don't try and flame my way.
 

kenohki

macrumors regular
Apr 26, 2002
136
0
Re: Re: Re: anxious

Originally posted by GetSome681

What about the ability to configure your system? What about memory settings? Can you change the aggressiveness of your memory system and its latency on the mac? Obviously that's another issue besides the cpu as well.
WTF? "Agressiveness of your memory system and it's latency"? You can't adjust that. First off, latency of memory is not adjustable. It just depends on what you buy, whether it's DRAM, SDRAM, MoSys 1T-SRAM or whatever. Memory latency is determined by the materials and build of the actual memory. And I'm not sure what you're talking about by "agressiveness" but I'm assuming it's something to do with paging but could you expand a little on this?
 

ibjoshua

macrumors 6502a
Jan 17, 2002
607
19
New Zealand
Re: Re: Re: anxious

Originally posted by GetSome681
...how many times do I say I love OS X...??
ummmmmm.... not once.

some people on these forums just don't get it do they?

we wouldn't be reading these fourms and devoting our valuable time to answering inane statements if we were interested in PCs. we're here because we love macs. the PC/mac comparisons, whatever their value, are wasted on the majority of us.

i_b_joshua
 

locovaca

macrumors regular
May 14, 2002
187
125
Iowa
Re: Re: anxious

Originally posted by MisterMe

Is that the only thing you can see as the Mac advantage?
What you need to do is to stop the p*ssing contests with your Windows weenie friends. The microprocessor is just one part (or two parts in the case of duals) of a much more complicated system that is the computer. By fixating on the processor, you show a virtual total lack of understanding of what it takes to turn all of those parts into a harmonious whole.
So, what else in a Powermac supercedes a pc? We have:


166 mhz bus (slower than either an average Athlon (266) or P4 (400)): Advantage PC.

UDMA 100: Effectively the same as a PC (not much difference between 100 and 133): Push

Firewire: Built in to all macs, many pcs still don't have it: Advantage Mac

Video: Most low end PC's do now have AGP slots, but it is still impossible to upgrade something like an iMac. At worst you can still buy a pci card for a low end pc and upgrade video or to dual monitors: Advantage PC

Sound: You can get nice sound cards for both, and while you can upgrade the sound in a cheap pc, people who buy cheap pcs or iMacs don't care about sound THAT much: Push

Monitors: Apple has nice monitors. On the other hand, the ADC system has some pretty damn expensive adaptors with them, and for what value? Why not just go DVI? Plenty of manufacturers can put the power lines in the same bundle of cords with the video signal if they want to (my KDS Rad 5 does it), but why make a proprietary format?: Push, but I wish Apple wouldn't use ADC

Harddrives: They use the same parts. Low end macs have low end drives (5400), high end macs have high end drives (7200, SCSI is you go real expensive). Ditto for PCs.: Push


So, the reason why the processor debate comes up often is because it's one of the few things that differentiates the two systems. On a side note, it is much easier to drop a $50 (and that's a more expensive one) Firewire card into a PC than it is to drop a new FSB in a mac. Right now the CPU and FSB are holding back the mac. It's the only variable that changes from it and a PC.
 

pgwalsh

macrumors 68000
Jun 21, 2002
1,639
218
New Zealand
Re: Re: Re: Re: anxious

Originally posted by i_b_joshua

ummmmmm.... not once.

some people on these forums just don't get it do they?

we wouldn't be reading these fourms and devoting our valuable time to answering inane statements if we were interested in PCs. we're here because we love macs. the PC/mac comparisons, whatever their value, are wasted on the majority of us.

i_b_joshua
Well said....
 

dethl

macrumors regular
Aug 28, 2002
246
0
Austin, TX
Competition? Ha!

As much as I want to see moto and ibm compete...its not exactly gonna be a level playing gound. Moto is coming out with a 32-bit processor while IBM has a 64-bit one...if the people realize this...moto is out of buisness

Sorry moto...you have been too slow in producing new chips...and now its coming back to bite you on the a**.
 

copperpipe

macrumors regular
Jul 9, 2002
127
0
wasted on converts

Well, it seems to me that most of the people that reply to these threads aren't looking at the whole picture, and the threads just turn into these silly pissing contests. Now this thread was at least enjoyable to read in some ways, and I think a lot of thoughtful arguments have been made. And yes, I too think that Apple's last nut to crack is a super powerful processor that upgrades "with the times". And I would love it if they kept their original G3 imac, and priced it down to $500-$600 for people with smaller wallets, but that's besides the point. These new processors look like they could be the ****, but I just bought the dual 867, and I can say this thing kicks some serious booty, and i couldn't be happier with it's speed/dollar value. (and of course the OS is just king) So in my mind Apple has good offers currently, and it looks like it has a nice future ahead. The Steve Plan has been worked on for some time now, and it's really coming together. Get us that last nut, and watch Apple soar!
 

Frobozz

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2002
1,127
58
South Orange, NJ
Bus width is not fair comparison

"166 mhz bus (slower than either an average Athlon (266) or P4 (400)): Advantage PC."

This does not give the PC an advantage. It _can_ make it faster in some circumstances, but it's not a simple matter of 400 MHz bus being 3 times faster than our 166. The PC, in the case of a 400 MHz bus, is really only supplying 3 or 4 buses at lower bandwidths-- like 100 Mhz x 4. Because of how a PC is built, EVERYTHING goes through the system bus in both directions. So in the PC's case, 167 MHz a single direction, and adding another 167 for the other direction, for a total of 333. In most cases on the Mac, the CPU, memory, and hard drive/device controllers can bidirectionally talk. This means that in most cases a 167 bus Mac is as fast as a 333 Mhz bus PC. The only Caveat is the amount of information it can send at that speed. The PC will have a slight advantage because of the through-put (more GB/sec), but it's through a smaller pipe. Keep in mind that a Mac can have it's memory talk to the CPU in a more direct manner, so these types of things are not as much of an issue on the Mac as the are for a PC.

I read most of this on other rumors sites, so if there are small errors I apologize in advance.
 

eric_n_dfw

macrumors 68000
Jan 2, 2002
1,507
55
DFW, TX, USA
Re: Bus width is not fair comparison

Originally posted by Frobozz
"166 mhz bus (slower than either an average Athlon (266) or P4 (400)): Advantage PC."

This does not give the PC an advantage. It _can_ make it faster in some circumstances, but it's not a simple matter of 400 MHz bus being 3 times faster than our 166. The PC, in the case of a 400 MHz bus, is really only supplying 3 or 4 buses at lower bandwidths-- like 100 Mhz x 4. Because of how a PC is built, EVERYTHING goes through the system bus in both directions. So in the PC's case, 167 MHz a single direction, and adding another 167 for the other direction, for a total of 333. In most cases on the Mac, the CPU, memory, and hard drive/device controllers can bidirectionally talk. This means that in most cases a 167 bus Mac is as fast as a 333 Mhz bus PC. The only Caveat is the amount of information it can send at that speed. The PC will have a slight advantage because of the through-put (more GB/sec), but it's through a smaller pipe. Keep in mind that a Mac can have it's memory talk to the CPU in a more direct manner, so these types of things are not as much of an issue on the Mac as the are for a PC.

I read most of this on other rumors sites, so if there are small errors I apologize in advance.
Maybe I'm ignorant - but I thought I knew quite a bit about such things - and what you are saying doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm not understanding your choice of words.

The way I understand the newest PMac arcitectures (in the simplest of terms), the G4's can talk to the rest of the machine at up to 167Mhz - period. They don't have DDR capabability. The memory controller directly in line with them talks 167 out one end (to the G4's) and 167 DDR out the other to the RAM. It also connects to the main, system bus and talks 167 (or slower) to the PCI slots and other parts of the machine.
The nice thing about that controller is that it can (theoretically) handle DMA hits to RAM and, since the DDR RAM has twice the bandwidth, less cycles are stolen from the G4's when it does so. (I don't believe the PCI, firewire, ATA or any other busses are DDR capable - but I may be wrong.)

As far as single vs. bi-directional, I'm not sure what you are talking about. The clock ticks on the bus and info is send. On the DDR RAM bus, info is sent on the low and high voltage cycles, effectively doubling the througput of the bus. But there is no way (that I know of) for data to go "both ways" on any given clock cycle (or 1/2 of a cycle for DDR)

Please enlighten me if I am wrong about any of this.