Motorola's MPC7457 Soon?

[rice_web]

But, a move to, say, a 1.6GHz G4 running a 200MHz system bus and all the cache goodies would be enough to hold out on a G5 release. Yeah, PowerMac sales would probably pick up with the release of a G5, but profit margins may also go down the crapper. I'm holding to my assumption that the 970 will be significantly more costly than the 7457.

EDIT: In fact, I'll say that we'll see a dual-1.GHz PowerMac in JUNE, a month before MWNY. This would remove the expectation of a PowerMac revision and likely hold sales steady. Then, a possible move to the 970 at September - January would be in place.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Re: Fantasy, but I feel this could really happen...

Originally posted by NicoMan

The rest of your predictions makes sense, but I don't think you will see the 7455 in the iBook. If (that's a big IF) the iBook gets the G4 anytime, it would make more sense to have it with 7457. Why? Because of heat dissipation. They could afford a 7457 on a 133MHz bus and a lower multiplier (giving you, I don't know, something like 867MHz or 1 GHz) running quite cool, while the other machines (apart from the PowerMacs, them on 970s) are pushing the buses and multipliers to scale the 7457 from 1.25 to 1.66 or 1.8GHz or something... Does that make any sense?

Anyway, this is all wishful thinking, and I also believe that this building up of expectations concerning the 970 is not good. People are expecting way too much of this processor. Que sera sera...

NicoMan

Actually, I think the iBook will probably get an L-Spec 7447 (the lowest power 74x7 variant). It won't be that quick, but it'll be quicker than the current iBook without be much (if any) hotter.

 

[Sun Baked]

Apple posted the block diagram of the new Powerbook 12...

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html

I couldn't find any more information on the new iMacs or the Intrepid controller, but the available information is interesting.

A new controller for the iMac and the PB 12, may very well mean sticking with the G4s a bit longer in this class of machine -- definitely longer than this summer.

So they may well see the 7447 or 7457 in the next speed bump.

 

[Sun Baked]

The block diagram...

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Re: Re: Fantasy, but I feel this could really happen...

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


Actually, I think the iBook will probably get an L-Spec 7447 (the lowest power 74x7 variant). It won't be that quick, but it'll be quicker than the current iBook without be much (if any) hotter.

Is the power consumption the only difference between the 7447 and 7457? If no what else is different? Cache size?

NicoMan

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Apple posted the block diagram of the new Powerbook 12...

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Updates/updates.html

I couldn't find any more information on the new iMacs or the Intrepid controller, but the available information is interesting.

A new controller for the iMac and the PB 12, may very well mean sticking with the G4s a bit longer in this class of machine -- definitely longer than this summer.

So they may well see the 7447 or 7457 in the next speed bump.

I think so too. Maybe the 17" PowerBook will see a low frequency version of the 970 when (IF???) it comes out, but the rest will probably stay on G4s for a while...

NicoMan

 

[yosoyjay]

Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by primalman


$5 says that if you bumped the PMs memory to at least 1gig, or you conversely down-scaled the memory in the P4s to 256mb, you would be in the same ballpark.

You think a testing article would provide equal physical footing. This is like have a sprint race with an Olympic runner and a chess champion - biased.

No way. Even if you down-scaled the memory in a G4, the P4 would still outperform it. The P4 is a far superior chip than the G4. The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing these bs arguments citing the "MHz Myth" when comparing a PC to a Mac. The reality is that even a dual G4 PowerMac is going to be outperformed by a cheaper, more powerful, single processor P4. Deal with it. There is no way Motorola can compete with Intel no matter what arch. footnotes you cite. That is why it is imperitive to move to the 970. Anything less is unaccepatble.

 

[Maxkraft]

P3 Vs. p4

The P4 is at 2.8 ghz only encodes video as 4 time as fast as a p3 at 500 mhz. The p4 is 40% slower per Mhz. This is not a myth, but it does mean apple needs to ship a 2.2 ghz g4.

 

[law guy]

Re: Why not the 7457 now?

Originally posted by Anecdoter
Keep in mind both Intel and AMD have had 512kb L2 cache for quite some time. However, most x86 boxes don't have 4mb of L3 cache per processor (the Xeon systems are an exception) - if Apple could do that at these price points, that would really turn some heads.

And the Intel Xeon only have a 512 L2 cache at this point (although the new Xeons are running a 533 MHz sys bus at - just this week catching the P4 - 3.06 MHz). You have to go to the Itanium to get the 1 or 3 mb cache (upgraded to 6mb later this year) but it loses speed through an extra process needed to work with current 32 bit Win code.

It would be great if Apple could move more to a build to order so that as soon as a new chip is out, they could just start without so much inventory to sell down. I do love that about new Intel chips - they are released and often shipping in systems that week. I suppose the cost of Cali assembly (ala a Texas like Dell center) and the retail commitment keeps this from happening?

I've seen a lot of single Intel chip vs. dual G4 benchmarks out on the web. Has anyone seen a dual Xeon (like a Dell Precision) vs. a dual G4? Or a single G4 vs. a single P4 (a notebook benchmark perhaps)?

 

[Fukui]

ummm

The G4 was maybe equivalent to a PIII, if not a PII

A PII?? Are you kidding? When I switched to a 450 G4 from a 400 PII, I noticed MORE than a 3x performance on everything (both on a 100mhz bus btw). G4 absolutely murders a P2 and competes with a P3 very very well until the clock of the P3 gets much higher. The problem isn't with the 'chip' itself, its with the stupid manufacture...motorola.

 

[Telomar]

Re: P3 Vs. p4

Originally posted by Maxkraft
The P4 is at 2.8 ghz only encodes video as 4 time as fast as a p3 at 500 mhz. The p4 is 40% slower per Mhz. This is not a myth, but it does mean apple needs to ship a 2.2 ghz g4.

Actually that suggests the processor is significantly worse than 40% slower given how much other aspects of the computer have improved since then.

The CPU doesn't make up the computer on its own. People do realise this right?

 

[shadowfax]

Re: Re: P3 Vs. p4

Originally posted by Telomar


Actually that suggests the processor is significantly worse than 40% slower given how much other aspects of the computer have improved since then.

The CPU doesn't make up the computer on its own. People do realise this right?

sure, but if you look at the rest of the computer, the PC industry beats apple to most new hardware, e.g. the radeon 9700, DDR RAM, all that superfast, mostly consumer hardware.

i couldn't compare x86 and mac hardware at the professional level though.

apple makes better laptops though, speaking strictly from a hardware perspective.

 

[shadowfax]

Re: Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by yosoyjay


No way. Even if you down-scaled the memory in a G4, the P4 would still outperform it. The P4 is a far superior chip than the G4. The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing these bs arguments citing the "MHz Myth" when comparing a PC to a Mac. The reality is that even a dual G4 PowerMac is going to be outperformed by a cheaper, more powerful, single processor P4. Deal with it. There is no way Motorola can compete with Intel no matter what arch. footnotes you cite. That is why it is imperitive to move to the 970. Anything less is unaccepatble.

this is the most illogical thing i have ever read. your argument consists entirely of a series of unprecedented comments that are utterly devoid of everything except inflamed opinion. have you ever used a G4? a contemporary one, mind you?

of course, apple does need to go to the 970, and the G4 has some serious issues, but comparing it to a pentium 3 even is very VERY stupid, not to mention a PII. i have a pentium III 933 MHz computer with the full 512 MB of RAM, an SB Live!, a Geforce 3 ti 200 (64 MB DDR)... it encodes a full CD into mp3 in about 15 minutes, 15 minutes during which i can do NOTHING with my computer except chat on the internet. my G4 1 GHz (notice, that's about the same MHz) burns full CDs in 3-5 minutes, and i can do just about anything i want to while it's encoding. as a matter of fact, i just did during this message. you would never have known it was doing so.

my dad had a P2 350 MHz... i am not even going there. your comparison is a great joke.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Re: Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by yosoyjay


The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power.

Okay I have seen and heard some dumb stuff in my day, but this takes the cake. I have a 350Mhz PII at school and a 350Mhz G3. The G3 has the PII for LUNCH! The 350Mhz G3 is actually usable. The PII is worthless. Where you come up with the idea that a PII will out run a G4 is beyond all imagination.

 

[neonart]

P3 and P2 better than g4?

Ok, I have an Atari 2600 and it rips the doors of any PS2...

Right.

People, come on? The G4 may not be god's gift to Computers, but it's a very good processor.
Here is an artivcle from PC mag, not any Mac mag, and it shows the G4 can still hang pretty good.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,810846,00.asp

I do agree the PPC970 is a must since Intel and AMD are not goiong to sit and wait.

 

[MacKid]

Re: Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by yosoyjay


No way. Even if you down-scaled the memory in a G4, the P4 would still outperform it. The P4 is a far superior chip than the G4. The G4 was maybe equivilent to a PIII, if not a PII in terms of raw computing power. I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing these bs arguments citing the "MHz Myth" when comparing a PC to a Mac. The reality is that even a dual G4 PowerMac is going to be outperformed by a cheaper, more powerful, single processor P4. Deal with it. There is no way Motorola can compete with Intel no matter what arch. footnotes you cite. That is why it is imperitive to move to the 970. Anything less is unaccepatble.

Yeah, people. You have to face it, in non-Vector apps, the G4 will win no benchmark. Period.

 

[Sun Baked]

Looks like we didn't have to wait long

Originally posted by tmarkt:
Not to change the subject but I just found this on Motorola's web site.

MPC7457 fact sheet

- Mark

And the specs...

 

[MacKid]

P.S.

I mean a P4 system with the same stats.

Just added that to lighten the flaming that I shall receive (although I must admit a G4 is faster than a P3 and most definitely a P2 )

 

[shadowfax]

Re: Re: Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by MacKid


Yeah, people. You have to face it, in non-Vector apps, the G4 will win no benchmark. Period.

right, but shoot, with programs compiled on OS X, windows wont even RUN them. what's your point?

when you port apps to mac, if you don't G4-optimize, you're an ass. don't blame apple/motorola for making a chip with added performance when other apps won't even use it. and with quartz &c, every app experiences some boost.

seriously, i don't much see your point.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Re: Looks like we didn't have to wait long

Originally posted by Sun Baked
And the specs...

thanks again Baked! notice it says scale up to 1.3 not exactly the chip of the future is it.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: Re: Looks like we didn't have to wait long

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
thanks again Baked! notice it says scale up to 1.3 not exactly the chip of the future is it.

And yet the 7455 has scaled to 1.43GHz with a less advanced manufacturing process... I think that 1.3GHz is the equivalent of Motorola saying the 7455 will only go to 1067MHz (which they say).

In response to the 7457/47 post, the 47 doesn't have L3 cache, which lowers its pin count. Apparently the 12" Powerbook uses the 7445.

Also, the 1GHz 7455 dissipates 35 watts (typical) while the 7457 dissipates 12 watts. I think the laptops are going to get a lot cooler soon.

However, another (more recentently updated?) thing on the same page says 15 watts typical for a 1GHz 7455. I'm confused.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Re: Re: Looks like we didn't have to wait long

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
thanks again Baked! notice it says scale up to 1.3 not exactly the chip of the future is it.

Remember the 7455 was not supposed to scale past 1Ghz according to the roadmap and it is now at 1.42Ghz. I would not take that Ghz limit on the roadmap to heart.

 

[MacKid]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by Shadowfax


right, but shoot, with programs compiled on OS X, windows wont even RUN them. what's your point?

when you port apps to mac, if you don't G4-optimize, you're an ass. don't blame apple/motorola for making a chip with added performance when other apps won't even use it. and with quartz &c, every app experiences some boost.

seriously, i don't much see your point.

Actually, you kind of missed it. I wasn't trying to complain like the person I quoted, I was just trying to point out to some of the "passionately stubborn" people out there that on some of the cross-platform "real-world" apps, a Pentium 4 just has the raw clock speed to pull ahead. I wasn't trying to say that the G4 has any speed problems. I mean, with the whole freakin' OS being vector optimized it's not by any means slow, I was just trying to point something out to the people that simply refuse to see part of the reason that 95% is making a certain decision.

 

[Telomar]

Re: Re: Re: P3 Vs. p4

Originally posted by Shadowfax


sure, but if you look at the rest of the computer, the PC industry beats apple to most new hardware, e.g. the radeon 9700, DDR RAM, all that superfast, mostly consumer hardware.

I'm really not sure how you got onto that tangent I said nothing about time to market of any technology. I was only pointing out the flaw in his calculations. People seem to fail to understand judging system performance is considerably more tricky than a number.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Testing was biased!

Originally posted by MacKid
...I mean, with the whole freakin' OS being vector optimized it's not by any means slow...

I'm no SIMD expert, but I think your're fooling yourself if you believe that "the whole OS is vector optimized."

Only certain things can be optimized for SIMD processing and I'd be surprised if much of the Darwin core has any AltiVec calls.

Quartz probably makes use of it for some of the eye candy - I'd venture a guess that a lot of the alpha-chanel stuff and the genie effect and things like that use AltiVec a lot. (I know dropping a G4/400 into my B&W G3/400 sped up Aqua a bit for me - and was like putting NOS in FCP!!)

Unfortunatelly, even with AltiVec doing the heavy lifting in applications like QuickTime, FCP, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD I still beleive it is ham-strung by the slow memory access speed. <soapbox>We need REAL DDR, like yesterday Steve! </soapbox>