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.
Poll:MWSF
- Thread starter MacManiac1224
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah i apologise for the lack of swearing but my heart just isnt in this subject.
searing doesnt affect the amount of content in my posts.
I swear when i get p***ed off.
Right wing people p**s me off
People who want combo drives in their laptops p***s me off.
Ignorant people p***s me off.
Snobs p***s me off.
but thats enough of a go at john.
[Edited by spikey on 11-21-2001 at 10:24 AM]
searing doesnt affect the amount of content in my posts.
I swear when i get p***ed off.
Right wing people p**s me off
People who want combo drives in their laptops p***s me off.
Ignorant people p***s me off.
Snobs p***s me off.
but thats enough of a go at john.
[Edited by spikey on 11-21-2001 at 10:24 AM]
wow, right wingers, snobs, and ignorant people piss me off too!
but a combo drive in a laptop is cool, so cool, kind of like being a man and being able to relieve oneself on the underground platform when no one is watching as opposed to being the opposite sex who have to either find a proper wc or a thick grove of trees
but a combo drive in a laptop is cool, so cool, kind of like being a man and being able to relieve oneself on the underground platform when no one is watching as opposed to being the opposite sex who have to either find a proper wc or a thick grove of trees
spikey>>> But that is just not the point i am making. Its not the
performance gains of the G3.
>>Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to
be had from the G3. "
>irrelevant to the point i was making. Irrelevant to the point you were
making. thats a bo***cks reply that says nothing.
On the contrary, your initial statement ("it's not the performance gains
of the G3") presupposes that there are some sort of performance gains to
the G3, which there aren't.
>>> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not
scale the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design
which will prevent iot from scaling easily.
>>You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs
to scale to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5
while the G6 hits the market.
>I wasnt making two points out of one, i was making two points using the
same subject.
1) "if the 7460 is ... based on the G4 it will not scale ... well"
2) "or it will encounter a problem ... which will prevent it from scaling
easily."
The first statement is (1) "the 7460 won't scale if it's a G4". The second
statement is (2) "it might run into a problem preventing it from scaling".
Now what could possibly cause "the 7460" to not "scale" (statement (1))?
Little gremlins called "problems preventing it from scaling" (statement (2)).
Hence the two points are the same; your first point implies the second.
>Scale to a max of 2Ghz???
It shouldn't need to go past that; Apple should be preparing to shift the
G5 into the low-end by then and have the G6 taped out and in final testing
revisions, ready for a pro launch.
>Going by the performance of the 7450
The performance of a processor does not necessarily reflect upon its
scalability in clockspeed. In fact, it usually doesn't.
> you expect it to scale from 1.33 Ghz to 2Ghz???
Apple would want to shift the consumer lines to the G4 for reasons I have
already outlined. It thus follows that Apple want high clockspeed G4s;
hence Apple will be in pursuit of processors of a 74xx design which can be
scaled upward to high frequencies.
>I assume you are going by past record because there is nothing else to
go by.
(past record of what?) On the contrary I am basing my conclusions on the
premises outlined above.
>You didnt reply with a an argument at all to my comment on scaling clock
speeds.
There isn't an argument to reply to apart from the largely vacuous "the
7460 won't scale".
>>> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,
>>... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is
way behind Moto's. "
>What??? this is madness.
Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?
> They put more money and commitment into developing cpus than any other
company, its a fact.
More than Intel?
>What made you think IBM got apple out of the 500Mhz dead end that
motorola got them into?
IBM's fabs, which required no further capital input ("IBM puts more
[money]") to fab the 7410s (as motorola had already designed the 7410,
and hence IBM's labs did not have to make any input which would require
IBM's capital).
IOW IBM's money-pouring into CPU development ("They put more money and
commitment") was NOT what supplemented Apple's G4 supply, rather, it was
IBM's fabrication plants, which are technologically ahead of Motorola's.
>>> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve
it faster.
>>... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let
IBM fab it while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't
hampered by their engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously
complex processor as it would appear. "
>firstly you think that IBM would want to do that?
For the right price.
>they are a huge company that puts mega amounts of money into developing
CPUs, so you think they will let Motorola design a cpu that IBM are
expected to build?
If there's money in it. See above.
> Secondly it is the over complex design of the G4 that hampers its performance,
You need to look at Moto's estimated SPEC95 numbers. Try
http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCCPUSUMM.pdf
The G4's performance is not hampered compared to the G3s, as the estimated
SPEC scores will demonstrate.
> if you look at its design you will see alot of the problems encountered
have been due to altivec.
Which problems would they be and why would they be due to Altivec?
> Hence why it doesnt matter who fabs it, if the design in the first place
is troubled then you will always encounter problems. and no-one said that
the G4 is a problem ridden architecture, you cant just assume that. You
can only tell its problem ridden until you try to improve it.
Hence one redesigns it a la 7460.
>>> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs
altivec,
>>How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer?
>Well how many to you f***ing think? this is a debate, in a debate you
try to prove yor points. you have not proven them,
On the contrary I have already justified Altivec's contribution and
possible future contribution to the consumer uses of the Mac.
> you have only stated your opinion, which conflicts with mine.
I've already given factors which correlate my opinion (`apple should
pursue a G4 imac as the g4 has altivec acceleration and stronger float
performance which will greatly benefit apps such as itunes et al'). Hence
my opinion is valid.
>>> i think it would offer great value for money, i think the 400Mhz bus
would be a great selling point,
>>Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what
a FSB is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push
the 400 mhz FSB of the P4s they produce? "
>None, the sellers of P4 machines concentrate on Clock speed of the cpu,
if they advertised the bus speed it would only confuse the consumer
So you assert that "[advertising] the bus speed [of a P4] ... would only
confuse the consumer".
> and it would detract from the appeal of high clock speed.
I hardly see how or why, even if it did, lower multipliers aid performance.
>On a mac though it would not detract, it would be a bragging point.
So fresh from asserting that "[advertising] the bus speed [of a P4] ...
would only confuse the consumer", you assert that pushing the Mac's FSB
speed "would be a bragging point." Precisely how is advertising of FSB
speed going to aid the Mac and detract from PCs as far as advertising
value is concerned?
>>> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the
recent past.
>>Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the
IP from Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could
contribute their POWER IP and engineers). "
>But the fact is no-one knows if this is going to happen, so right now its
all make believe. The best option would be that, but of the options
available rioght now IBM is the way to go as i have stated.
Apple could always contract someone else to fabricate the various G4
designs for them. You presuppose that the G4 is flawed such that no
company can replicate it en masse. On the contrary IBM reportedly had
great success with the 7410 at high clockspeeds whereas Motorola didn't.
This suggests to me that quality of facilities, rather than architectural
design, is at fault. Hence get a better fab onto the job when it comes to
G4s.
>>> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have
a 400Mhz bus.
>>... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the
G4s. Bus multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so.
>you think IBM would let out a technology like that
What technology would this be?
>on a motorola product??? Madness, it aint gonna happen.
And precisely what technology will IBM stand in the way of? I can't see
anything in the above which IBM has an interest against.
>>> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.
>>All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere
else.
>What the hell??? The bottleneck isnt a constant throughout the system.
I didn't say bottlenecks were constant; I suggested that bottlenecks would
be present, but moving the bottleneck somewhere else isn't going to solve
speed problems.
>There are several of them, getting rid of one of the biggest would
increase performance alot.
You presuppose that the FSB is the greatest bottleneck.
>>> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs
over macs.
>>Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about
price doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know
what they want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac
won't change them.
>wrong. The biggest and best way to tap into the Pc market is to give
valuye for money.
... and one of the best ways to do that is to bundle and develop cool
software, funded by sales of hardware. How is that `wrong'?
> That is the while point of capability of a machine, you get more
capability for less price.
The reason why PCs are so cheap is because a breakdown of the typical
price tag looks much like:
tangibles (parts, windows licence) + labour + skinny margin
Apple's equation looks more like:
tangibles (parts) + labour + bigger margin
The bigger margin supports R&D of the OS (presumably much more than the $x
OEMs pay for a 9x/XP licence) and other software. Also, Apple develop a
lot of their own chipsets and ICs (re their purchase of raycer graphics)
and contribute to the PPC (more in the recent past). Hence Apple's
products have a higher price tag. Critically though, it can't be lowered.
Apple _needs_ the 30% gross margin to fund R&D. Particularly, with the OS,
Apple doesn't have economies of scale working in its favour. Apple and MS
both develop full-featured consumer OSes and hence spend (at least
roughly) similar amounts on them. MS can spread the cost over 95% of the
PC market; Apple has only 5%.
> Hence why value for money is the way to tap into the PC market.
If Apple could reduce the price of Macs further they would. If they
haven't, it's for a reason (outlined above).
>One of the most important facts about this debate is not what a cpu can
do, but what future it has.
True, there's no point using a high performance architecture only to bang
one's head into the wall eventually.
> about 2 years ago apple went with the G4. And it was a great processor
of its time, one of the best if not the best. But it had no future and
ultimately has put apple in the s**t. The mistake they made then is not
looking at the long term effects. If they go with a motorola design again
which is based on the original G4 then they are asking for the same kind
of trouble.
I can't see your point. Perhaps IBM should mint G4s for Apple?
> If they go with IBM then they are going with a design that could kill
many PCs, but more importantly will give apple a future.
Using a processor that debuted before 98 is hardly going to `give apple a
future'.
>IBM put money into developing for the future, motorola have not and do
not. infact they havent commited to the powerpc nearly as much as IBM
have offered to.
Since when has IBM committed to the PPC?
>Oh, and this 750FX is meant to have altivec like accelaration.
Perhaps. IBM licenced Altivec a while ago and are rumored to be in
negotiations to purchase it.
> so it ouwldnt be that far off the new G4. Or not nearly as much as the
current 750cx is.
Apple could conceivably settle for that, but as the G3 still needs better
floating point performance the G3s would need one or both of 1) higher
clockspeeds or 2) stronger float (perhaps the FX is a serious redesign of
the G3).
performance gains of the G3.
>>Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to
be had from the G3. "
>irrelevant to the point i was making. Irrelevant to the point you were
making. thats a bo***cks reply that says nothing.
On the contrary, your initial statement ("it's not the performance gains
of the G3") presupposes that there are some sort of performance gains to
the G3, which there aren't.
>>> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not
scale the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design
which will prevent iot from scaling easily.
>>You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs
to scale to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5
while the G6 hits the market.
>I wasnt making two points out of one, i was making two points using the
same subject.
1) "if the 7460 is ... based on the G4 it will not scale ... well"
2) "or it will encounter a problem ... which will prevent it from scaling
easily."
The first statement is (1) "the 7460 won't scale if it's a G4". The second
statement is (2) "it might run into a problem preventing it from scaling".
Now what could possibly cause "the 7460" to not "scale" (statement (1))?
Little gremlins called "problems preventing it from scaling" (statement (2)).
Hence the two points are the same; your first point implies the second.
>Scale to a max of 2Ghz???
It shouldn't need to go past that; Apple should be preparing to shift the
G5 into the low-end by then and have the G6 taped out and in final testing
revisions, ready for a pro launch.
>Going by the performance of the 7450
The performance of a processor does not necessarily reflect upon its
scalability in clockspeed. In fact, it usually doesn't.
> you expect it to scale from 1.33 Ghz to 2Ghz???
Apple would want to shift the consumer lines to the G4 for reasons I have
already outlined. It thus follows that Apple want high clockspeed G4s;
hence Apple will be in pursuit of processors of a 74xx design which can be
scaled upward to high frequencies.
>I assume you are going by past record because there is nothing else to
go by.
(past record of what?) On the contrary I am basing my conclusions on the
premises outlined above.
>You didnt reply with a an argument at all to my comment on scaling clock
speeds.
There isn't an argument to reply to apart from the largely vacuous "the
7460 won't scale".
>>> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,
>>... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is
way behind Moto's. "
>What??? this is madness.
Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?
> They put more money and commitment into developing cpus than any other
company, its a fact.
More than Intel?
>What made you think IBM got apple out of the 500Mhz dead end that
motorola got them into?
IBM's fabs, which required no further capital input ("IBM puts more
[money]") to fab the 7410s (as motorola had already designed the 7410,
and hence IBM's labs did not have to make any input which would require
IBM's capital).
IOW IBM's money-pouring into CPU development ("They put more money and
commitment") was NOT what supplemented Apple's G4 supply, rather, it was
IBM's fabrication plants, which are technologically ahead of Motorola's.
>>> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve
it faster.
>>... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let
IBM fab it while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't
hampered by their engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously
complex processor as it would appear. "
>firstly you think that IBM would want to do that?
For the right price.
>they are a huge company that puts mega amounts of money into developing
CPUs, so you think they will let Motorola design a cpu that IBM are
expected to build?
If there's money in it. See above.
> Secondly it is the over complex design of the G4 that hampers its performance,
You need to look at Moto's estimated SPEC95 numbers. Try
http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCCPUSUMM.pdf
The G4's performance is not hampered compared to the G3s, as the estimated
SPEC scores will demonstrate.
> if you look at its design you will see alot of the problems encountered
have been due to altivec.
Which problems would they be and why would they be due to Altivec?
> Hence why it doesnt matter who fabs it, if the design in the first place
is troubled then you will always encounter problems. and no-one said that
the G4 is a problem ridden architecture, you cant just assume that. You
can only tell its problem ridden until you try to improve it.
Hence one redesigns it a la 7460.
>>> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs
altivec,
>>How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer?
>Well how many to you f***ing think? this is a debate, in a debate you
try to prove yor points. you have not proven them,
On the contrary I have already justified Altivec's contribution and
possible future contribution to the consumer uses of the Mac.
> you have only stated your opinion, which conflicts with mine.
I've already given factors which correlate my opinion (`apple should
pursue a G4 imac as the g4 has altivec acceleration and stronger float
performance which will greatly benefit apps such as itunes et al'). Hence
my opinion is valid.
>>> i think it would offer great value for money, i think the 400Mhz bus
would be a great selling point,
>>Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what
a FSB is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push
the 400 mhz FSB of the P4s they produce? "
>None, the sellers of P4 machines concentrate on Clock speed of the cpu,
if they advertised the bus speed it would only confuse the consumer
So you assert that "[advertising] the bus speed [of a P4] ... would only
confuse the consumer".
> and it would detract from the appeal of high clock speed.
I hardly see how or why, even if it did, lower multipliers aid performance.
>On a mac though it would not detract, it would be a bragging point.
So fresh from asserting that "[advertising] the bus speed [of a P4] ...
would only confuse the consumer", you assert that pushing the Mac's FSB
speed "would be a bragging point." Precisely how is advertising of FSB
speed going to aid the Mac and detract from PCs as far as advertising
value is concerned?
>>> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the
recent past.
>>Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the
IP from Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could
contribute their POWER IP and engineers). "
>But the fact is no-one knows if this is going to happen, so right now its
all make believe. The best option would be that, but of the options
available rioght now IBM is the way to go as i have stated.
Apple could always contract someone else to fabricate the various G4
designs for them. You presuppose that the G4 is flawed such that no
company can replicate it en masse. On the contrary IBM reportedly had
great success with the 7410 at high clockspeeds whereas Motorola didn't.
This suggests to me that quality of facilities, rather than architectural
design, is at fault. Hence get a better fab onto the job when it comes to
G4s.
>>> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have
a 400Mhz bus.
>>... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the
G4s. Bus multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so.
>you think IBM would let out a technology like that
What technology would this be?
>on a motorola product??? Madness, it aint gonna happen.
And precisely what technology will IBM stand in the way of? I can't see
anything in the above which IBM has an interest against.
>>> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.
>>All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere
else.
>What the hell??? The bottleneck isnt a constant throughout the system.
I didn't say bottlenecks were constant; I suggested that bottlenecks would
be present, but moving the bottleneck somewhere else isn't going to solve
speed problems.
>There are several of them, getting rid of one of the biggest would
increase performance alot.
You presuppose that the FSB is the greatest bottleneck.
>>> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs
over macs.
>>Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about
price doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know
what they want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac
won't change them.
>wrong. The biggest and best way to tap into the Pc market is to give
valuye for money.
... and one of the best ways to do that is to bundle and develop cool
software, funded by sales of hardware. How is that `wrong'?
> That is the while point of capability of a machine, you get more
capability for less price.
The reason why PCs are so cheap is because a breakdown of the typical
price tag looks much like:
tangibles (parts, windows licence) + labour + skinny margin
Apple's equation looks more like:
tangibles (parts) + labour + bigger margin
The bigger margin supports R&D of the OS (presumably much more than the $x
OEMs pay for a 9x/XP licence) and other software. Also, Apple develop a
lot of their own chipsets and ICs (re their purchase of raycer graphics)
and contribute to the PPC (more in the recent past). Hence Apple's
products have a higher price tag. Critically though, it can't be lowered.
Apple _needs_ the 30% gross margin to fund R&D. Particularly, with the OS,
Apple doesn't have economies of scale working in its favour. Apple and MS
both develop full-featured consumer OSes and hence spend (at least
roughly) similar amounts on them. MS can spread the cost over 95% of the
PC market; Apple has only 5%.
> Hence why value for money is the way to tap into the PC market.
If Apple could reduce the price of Macs further they would. If they
haven't, it's for a reason (outlined above).
>One of the most important facts about this debate is not what a cpu can
do, but what future it has.
True, there's no point using a high performance architecture only to bang
one's head into the wall eventually.
> about 2 years ago apple went with the G4. And it was a great processor
of its time, one of the best if not the best. But it had no future and
ultimately has put apple in the s**t. The mistake they made then is not
looking at the long term effects. If they go with a motorola design again
which is based on the original G4 then they are asking for the same kind
of trouble.
I can't see your point. Perhaps IBM should mint G4s for Apple?
> If they go with IBM then they are going with a design that could kill
many PCs, but more importantly will give apple a future.
Using a processor that debuted before 98 is hardly going to `give apple a
future'.
>IBM put money into developing for the future, motorola have not and do
not. infact they havent commited to the powerpc nearly as much as IBM
have offered to.
Since when has IBM committed to the PPC?
>Oh, and this 750FX is meant to have altivec like accelaration.
Perhaps. IBM licenced Altivec a while ago and are rumored to be in
negotiations to purchase it.
> so it ouwldnt be that far off the new G4. Or not nearly as much as the
current 750cx is.
Apple could conceivably settle for that, but as the G3 still needs better
floating point performance the G3s would need one or both of 1) higher
clockspeeds or 2) stronger float (perhaps the FX is a serious redesign of
the G3).
I dont have time to defend the top part of the post joey, because you split up parts of my post and subsequently took them out of context.
">>... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is
way behind Moto's. "
>What??? this is madness.
Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?"
No, that is down to apple choosing whether to go with motorola or IBM, and a hell of alot of paperwork which stops them from changing ship.
no IBM product uses the G3s, it is irrelevent, the imac uses IBMs G3.
No they arent actively developing the G5, they arent allowed to, apple chose motorola to do it. But IBM invested a hell of alot into their design of the G5, apparently apple chose motorolas because of altivec..... or so i hear.
IBM got the G4 out of the 500Mhz dead end. Since then they have not been assigned to make the G4.
IBMs commitment is undoubtedly bigger than motorolas, they put more money into it. They have developed several new fabrication technologies, etc.
It doesnt matter when the G3 debut was, the point is it can apparently scale up quite high. therefore having a good future. And the fact it still has good performance per clock.
Hmmm im not sure about licensing altivec, but i think they have another SIMD engine like it. i read somehting about another SIMD engine on an IBM site. And that would also be my guess.
i want the G3 in an imac still, but i think this thread is getting irrelevant.
My guess is the G3fx will stay in laptops, but the G4 7460 will move into an imac.
">>... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is
way behind Moto's. "
>What??? this is madness.
Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?"
No, that is down to apple choosing whether to go with motorola or IBM, and a hell of alot of paperwork which stops them from changing ship.
no IBM product uses the G3s, it is irrelevent, the imac uses IBMs G3.
No they arent actively developing the G5, they arent allowed to, apple chose motorola to do it. But IBM invested a hell of alot into their design of the G5, apparently apple chose motorolas because of altivec..... or so i hear.
IBM got the G4 out of the 500Mhz dead end. Since then they have not been assigned to make the G4.
IBMs commitment is undoubtedly bigger than motorolas, they put more money into it. They have developed several new fabrication technologies, etc.
It doesnt matter when the G3 debut was, the point is it can apparently scale up quite high. therefore having a good future. And the fact it still has good performance per clock.
Hmmm im not sure about licensing altivec, but i think they have another SIMD engine like it. i read somehting about another SIMD engine on an IBM site. And that would also be my guess.
i want the G3 in an imac still, but i think this thread is getting irrelevant.
My guess is the G3fx will stay in laptops, but the G4 7460 will move into an imac.
spikey>I dont have time to defend the top part of the post joey, because
you split up parts of my post and subsequently took them out of context.
One thing I learned on usenet was when one poster claims that another is
taking their post out of context, they're usually ********ting. Since you
appear not to have time to spare, give me just one or two examples of
passages which I took out of context. Apologies if I did; nuance is indeed
handled better verbally.
>>Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?"
>No, that is down to apple choosing whether to go with motorola or IBM,
and a hell of alot of paperwork which stops them from changing ship. no
IBM product uses the G3s, it is irrelevent, the imac uses IBMs G3.
Aha. So what's IBM's motive to develop the G3 if they never planned to use
it? If they planned to use the G3 arch they would have by now... it has
been around for some time now. They can't be developing the G3 purely for
Apple, and so I doubt IBM's PPC commitment (for now, a joint venture
w/apple would produce results IMHO).
> No they arent actively developing the G5, they arent allowed to, apple
chose motorola to do it.
So you assert that Apple's anointing of Motorola as the official G5 go-to
company prevented IBM from "actively developing the G5". Why? Surely it's
IBM's business whether or not they develop the G5? Your statement above
implies that IBM wasn't "allowed to" develop the G5 due to Apple choosing
Motorola (which doesn't at all imply that IBM _can't_ develop the G5).
> But IBM invested a hell of alot into their design of the G5, apparently
apple chose motorolas because of altivec..... or so i hear.
So Apple could always switch to their design, although I know of no G5
commitment by IBM. However it shares technologies with IBM's POWER4
(emphasis on parallelism, multicoring).
> IBM got the G4 out of the 500Mhz dead end.
I have already pointed out that IBM's R&D was not at all necessary for
this to happen; there was no intrinsic benefit of "IBM" that made this
happen, apart from the completely separate matter of their fabs'
technological advancement.
> Since then they have not been assigned to make the G4.
IBMs commitment is undoubtedly bigger than motorolas, they put more money
into it. They have developed several new fabrication technologies, etc.
Motorola develops new fabrication technologies, the G5 will be fabricated
on their HiP 7.0 [i think that's the correct capitalisation... but don't
ask me what it stands for] process, apparently, and they are developing
8.0 according to MOSR.
>It doesnt matter when the G3 debut was, the point is it can apparently
scale up quite high. therefore having a good future. And the fact it still
has good performance per clock.
Cut to me-justifying-G4. Altivec, float, etc...
>Hmmm im not sure about licensing altivec,
I recall reading it in two places, not a big deal was made of it. ~end of
1999 IIRC.
> but i think they have another SIMD engine like it. i read somehting
about another SIMD engine on an IBM site. And that would also be my guess.
If IBM did licence Altivec, the terms of the agreement could be quite
lenient given that IBM and Moto are technology partners. Despite the
demise of the AIM alliance, IBM's Altivec licence could be slack enough to
allow them to develop derivatives. This allows IBM to get at a SIMD unit
without having to develop one, and then shelve their work should they
purchase Altivec from Motorola. I believe this arrangement is plausible as
it compenses Motorola for their research while allowing IBM access to a
SIMD architecture -- all the while futureproofing IBM, if an altivec sale
is anticipated -- if IBM is allowed under the terms of the contract to
actually research and develop a derivative (rather than just use AV in
their processors and G4s they fab for Apple), it saves IBM from the
scenario where they research their own, incompatible, SIMD ISA in parallel
with an AV licence (for fabbing apple's G4s/for future POWERs) only to
shelve the work should IBM buy Altivec. Also it saves possible
incompatibilities -- if IBM implemented a custom SIMD unit in a future
POWER, and they bought altivec, it would cause obvious problems and
porting pains (ISA transitions are always a PITA).
Notice that Apple named Altivec `Velocity Engine'. They abstracted it with
an Apple-specific name. This may be for the reason that should IBM
develop an AV-compatible derivative and should Apple use it, Apple can
pass it off as the Velocity Engine with no further comment -- the critical
issue here being that Motorola would not assent to IBM's derivative being
given the Altivec name (and hence Apple would not be able to advertise
`Altivec' in ads for IBM-minted G4s. Just a thought.
>i want the G3 in an imac still,
Haven't I made the G4's advantages clear enough?
> but i think this thread is getting irrelevant.
Ah, how convenient -- we'll claim that the thread has moved into
irrelevance, another usenet parry.
> My guess is the G3fx will stay in laptops,
Maybe. Apple's been slow to bump up ibook specs imho.
> but the G4 7460 will move into an imac.
About time. thank God for that.
you split up parts of my post and subsequently took them out of context.
One thing I learned on usenet was when one poster claims that another is
taking their post out of context, they're usually ********ting. Since you
appear not to have time to spare, give me just one or two examples of
passages which I took out of context. Apologies if I did; nuance is indeed
handled better verbally.
>>Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?"
>No, that is down to apple choosing whether to go with motorola or IBM,
and a hell of alot of paperwork which stops them from changing ship. no
IBM product uses the G3s, it is irrelevent, the imac uses IBMs G3.
Aha. So what's IBM's motive to develop the G3 if they never planned to use
it? If they planned to use the G3 arch they would have by now... it has
been around for some time now. They can't be developing the G3 purely for
Apple, and so I doubt IBM's PPC commitment (for now, a joint venture
w/apple would produce results IMHO).
> No they arent actively developing the G5, they arent allowed to, apple
chose motorola to do it.
So you assert that Apple's anointing of Motorola as the official G5 go-to
company prevented IBM from "actively developing the G5". Why? Surely it's
IBM's business whether or not they develop the G5? Your statement above
implies that IBM wasn't "allowed to" develop the G5 due to Apple choosing
Motorola (which doesn't at all imply that IBM _can't_ develop the G5).
> But IBM invested a hell of alot into their design of the G5, apparently
apple chose motorolas because of altivec..... or so i hear.
So Apple could always switch to their design, although I know of no G5
commitment by IBM. However it shares technologies with IBM's POWER4
(emphasis on parallelism, multicoring).
> IBM got the G4 out of the 500Mhz dead end.
I have already pointed out that IBM's R&D was not at all necessary for
this to happen; there was no intrinsic benefit of "IBM" that made this
happen, apart from the completely separate matter of their fabs'
technological advancement.
> Since then they have not been assigned to make the G4.
IBMs commitment is undoubtedly bigger than motorolas, they put more money
into it. They have developed several new fabrication technologies, etc.
Motorola develops new fabrication technologies, the G5 will be fabricated
on their HiP 7.0 [i think that's the correct capitalisation... but don't
ask me what it stands for
] process, apparently, and they are developing8.0 according to MOSR.
>It doesnt matter when the G3 debut was, the point is it can apparently
scale up quite high. therefore having a good future. And the fact it still
has good performance per clock.
Cut to me-justifying-G4. Altivec, float, etc...
>Hmmm im not sure about licensing altivec,
I recall reading it in two places, not a big deal was made of it. ~end of
1999 IIRC.
> but i think they have another SIMD engine like it. i read somehting
about another SIMD engine on an IBM site. And that would also be my guess.
If IBM did licence Altivec, the terms of the agreement could be quite
lenient given that IBM and Moto are technology partners. Despite the
demise of the AIM alliance, IBM's Altivec licence could be slack enough to
allow them to develop derivatives. This allows IBM to get at a SIMD unit
without having to develop one, and then shelve their work should they
purchase Altivec from Motorola. I believe this arrangement is plausible as
it compenses Motorola for their research while allowing IBM access to a
SIMD architecture -- all the while futureproofing IBM, if an altivec sale
is anticipated -- if IBM is allowed under the terms of the contract to
actually research and develop a derivative (rather than just use AV in
their processors and G4s they fab for Apple), it saves IBM from the
scenario where they research their own, incompatible, SIMD ISA in parallel
with an AV licence (for fabbing apple's G4s/for future POWERs) only to
shelve the work should IBM buy Altivec. Also it saves possible
incompatibilities -- if IBM implemented a custom SIMD unit in a future
POWER, and they bought altivec, it would cause obvious problems and
porting pains (ISA transitions are always a PITA).
Notice that Apple named Altivec `Velocity Engine'. They abstracted it with
an Apple-specific name. This may be for the reason that should IBM
develop an AV-compatible derivative and should Apple use it, Apple can
pass it off as the Velocity Engine with no further comment -- the critical
issue here being that Motorola would not assent to IBM's derivative being
given the Altivec name (and hence Apple would not be able to advertise
`Altivec' in ads for IBM-minted G4s. Just a thought.
>i want the G3 in an imac still,
Haven't I made the G4's advantages clear enough?
> but i think this thread is getting irrelevant.
Ah, how convenient -- we'll claim that the thread has moved into
irrelevance, another usenet parry.
> My guess is the G3fx will stay in laptops,
Maybe. Apple's been slow to bump up ibook specs imho.
> but the G4 7460 will move into an imac.
About time. thank God for that.
Irrelevent thread convenient??? no, just the truth.
Instead of debating the core issues which would put one cpu ahead of another we are debating subjects like whether i make 2 points out of one or not.
">Scale to a max of 2Ghz???
It shouldn't need to go past that; Apple should be preparing to shift the
G5 into the low-end by then and have the G6 taped out and in final testing
revisions, ready for a pro launch. "
read the rest of what i wrote after/before it and you will see the point i am making, it isnt the point you thought i was. you took it out of context, appology accepted in advance.
Ok, these posts are irrelevent.
The core issues we have to sum up are:
value for money.
performance for consumer.
Bottlenecks.
marketability.
future scalability.
value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
Performance for consumer, G4 wins.
Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck. Bottlenecks arent a constant, you do not move a bottleneck round a system, by improving the speed at where the bottleneck is the you cancel out the bottleneck so there is no bottleneck hence improving performance. G3 wins.
Marketability, both over a1Ghz. Its whether you want a 400Mhz bus with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz. personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is likey to make a balls up of something. IBM is mega rich, wants to be a bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models for each of the upcoming powerpcs.
The G4 looks scalable, but so did the 7450.
G3 looks scalable, IBM hasnt made a balls up so far.
In my opinion the G3 wins that.
Instead of debating the core issues which would put one cpu ahead of another we are debating subjects like whether i make 2 points out of one or not.
">Scale to a max of 2Ghz???
It shouldn't need to go past that; Apple should be preparing to shift the
G5 into the low-end by then and have the G6 taped out and in final testing
revisions, ready for a pro launch. "
read the rest of what i wrote after/before it and you will see the point i am making, it isnt the point you thought i was. you took it out of context, appology accepted in advance.
Ok, these posts are irrelevent.
The core issues we have to sum up are:
value for money.
performance for consumer.
Bottlenecks.
marketability.
future scalability.
value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
Performance for consumer, G4 wins.
Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck. Bottlenecks arent a constant, you do not move a bottleneck round a system, by improving the speed at where the bottleneck is the you cancel out the bottleneck so there is no bottleneck hence improving performance. G3 wins.
Marketability, both over a1Ghz. Its whether you want a 400Mhz bus with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz. personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is likey to make a balls up of something. IBM is mega rich, wants to be a bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models for each of the upcoming powerpcs.
The G4 looks scalable, but so did the 7450.
G3 looks scalable, IBM hasnt made a balls up so far.
In my opinion the G3 wins that.
>The core issues we have to sum up are:
>value for money.
>performance for consumer.
>Bottlenecks.
>marketability.
>future scalability.
>value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays _once_
for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack thereof)
are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better float?];
surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?]
>Performance for consumer, G4 wins.
No argument there.
>Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck.
You are clearly basing your conclusion on the purported 400 mhz FSB of the
FX. If apple is planning for ~1.2ghz+ G4s they'll probably be planning
sufficiently fast FSBs. This 400 mhz FSB is probably a maximum anyway.
Would apple go from 100 mhz (i think) to 400?
Expect DDR ~266 in the pro G4 lines; SDR 133 in the imacs.
>Bottlenecks arent a constant, you do not move a bottleneck round a
system, by improving the speed at where the bottleneck is the you cancel
out the bottleneck
True...
>so there is no bottleneck
It eliminates that one bottleneck in question, but what happens is that
one winds up having a smaller bottleneck somewhere else. This is what
drives innovation -- companies are always fixing the next bottleneck...
> hence improving performance. G3 wins.
Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed.
>Marketability, both over a1Ghz.
In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor.
> Its whether you want a 400Mhz`bus
Apple is not going to ship a G3 with a 400 mhz FSB any time soon. I don't
know why you keep thinking this, particularly as the IBM release
asserts that "the chip supports bus frequencies of up to 200MHz", which
is only HALF of this 400 mhz which you continually assert.
> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.
... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary.
> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac.
>Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is
likey to make a balls up of something.
This could be solved by a purchase from Moto of the PPC IP. Failing that,
if Apple shifts its focus to IBM, Moto will not need to develop
high-performance PPCs and may as well sell the IP to IBM or Apple anyway.
So either way, as long as IBM creates a useful, Altivec-compatible SIMD
unit to couple w/the PPC, there shouldn't be a problem. The problems lie
in the fabrication of the processors rather than the design (although the
attrition of engineers from Moto as reported by MOSR is worrying; the G3
was intended to have Altivec, the G4 a multicored design etc.)
>IBM is mega rich,
IBM is drowning in debt (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/i/ibm.html -- debt/equity
of 1.30 [up from ~1.21 last quarter IIRC], way behind Moto's (still not
altogether wonderful) 0.65. Neither touches Apple's 0.08 or Dell's 0.11
for example). It's probably worth pointing out that IBM has less cash in
the bank than Apple ($4.01b vs 4.33b), although they may very well have a
massive R&D budget (which could be directed towards future PPC
development, which would be a good thing).
> wants to be a bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models
for each of the upcoming powerpcs.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Still, I wouldn't be surprised,
although I didn't hear of any specifics.
>The G4 looks scalable,
(7460 specifically?) That sounds like an aboutface, if I didn't know
better...
> but so did the 7450.
The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz.
> G3 looks scalable, IBM hasnt made a balls up so far.
This phrase betrays your apparent inability to distinguish between the
technological advancement (generally speaking, i'm not a fab expert so I
can't be specific) of a fab ("ibm's got better fabs than moto") and the
ability of the engineers to design scalable processors. The G4 could very
well be scaled up to high frequencies, it may need to be redesigned
(and it has, multiple times, in the same fashion as the G3s have been
redesigned by Moto and now by IBM).
IOW
spikey> "G3 looks scalable"
(because IBM's fabs happen to be of further advancement than Moto's)
spikey> "IBM hasnt made a balls up"
(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor design.
both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls apart is
their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run reliably
at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM hasn't, but the
G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto. Hence if IBM can
get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that "Motorola" [i.e. their
semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has been demonstrated as
false.
Rather, it is the capabilities of Moto's _fabs_ [inadequate] which caused
their G4 plans to "balls up", quite distinct from your blaming "Motorola"
(i.e. their engineers)).
> In my opinion the G3 wins that.
So far; however, it's all about the fabs; you don't acknowledge that, for
some reason.
>stuck at 500Mhz fiasco
Then Apple should contract fabrication to IBM, or AMD, or TSMC...
[Edited by joey j on 11-23-2001 at 12:05 PM]
>value for money.
>performance for consumer.
>Bottlenecks.
>marketability.
>future scalability.
>value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays _once_
for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack thereof)
are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better float?];
surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?]
>Performance for consumer, G4 wins.
No argument there.
>Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck.
You are clearly basing your conclusion on the purported 400 mhz FSB of the
FX. If apple is planning for ~1.2ghz+ G4s they'll probably be planning
sufficiently fast FSBs. This 400 mhz FSB is probably a maximum anyway.
Would apple go from 100 mhz (i think) to 400?
Expect DDR ~266 in the pro G4 lines; SDR 133 in the imacs.
>Bottlenecks arent a constant, you do not move a bottleneck round a
system, by improving the speed at where the bottleneck is the you cancel
out the bottleneck
True...
>so there is no bottleneck
It eliminates that one bottleneck in question, but what happens is that
one winds up having a smaller bottleneck somewhere else. This is what
drives innovation -- companies are always fixing the next bottleneck...
> hence improving performance. G3 wins.
Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed.
>Marketability, both over a1Ghz.
In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor.
> Its whether you want a 400Mhz`bus
Apple is not going to ship a G3 with a 400 mhz FSB any time soon. I don't
know why you keep thinking this, particularly as the IBM release
asserts that "the chip supports bus frequencies of up to 200MHz", which
is only HALF of this 400 mhz which you continually assert.
> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.
... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary.
> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac.
>Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is
likey to make a balls up of something.
This could be solved by a purchase from Moto of the PPC IP. Failing that,
if Apple shifts its focus to IBM, Moto will not need to develop
high-performance PPCs and may as well sell the IP to IBM or Apple anyway.
So either way, as long as IBM creates a useful, Altivec-compatible SIMD
unit to couple w/the PPC, there shouldn't be a problem. The problems lie
in the fabrication of the processors rather than the design (although the
attrition of engineers from Moto as reported by MOSR is worrying; the G3
was intended to have Altivec, the G4 a multicored design etc.)
>IBM is mega rich,
IBM is drowning in debt (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/i/ibm.html -- debt/equity
of 1.30 [up from ~1.21 last quarter IIRC], way behind Moto's (still not
altogether wonderful) 0.65. Neither touches Apple's 0.08 or Dell's 0.11
for example). It's probably worth pointing out that IBM has less cash in
the bank than Apple ($4.01b vs 4.33b), although they may very well have a
massive R&D budget (which could be directed towards future PPC
development, which would be a good thing).
> wants to be a bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models
for each of the upcoming powerpcs.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Still, I wouldn't be surprised,
although I didn't hear of any specifics.
>The G4 looks scalable,
(7460 specifically?) That sounds like an aboutface, if I didn't know
better...
> but so did the 7450.
The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz.
> G3 looks scalable, IBM hasnt made a balls up so far.
This phrase betrays your apparent inability to distinguish between the
technological advancement (generally speaking, i'm not a fab expert so I
can't be specific) of a fab ("ibm's got better fabs than moto") and the
ability of the engineers to design scalable processors. The G4 could very
well be scaled up to high frequencies, it may need to be redesigned
(and it has, multiple times, in the same fashion as the G3s have been
redesigned by Moto and now by IBM).
IOW
spikey> "G3 looks scalable"
(because IBM's fabs happen to be of further advancement than Moto's)
spikey> "IBM hasnt made a balls up"
(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor design.
both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls apart is
their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run reliably
at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM hasn't, but the
G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto. Hence if IBM can
get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that "Motorola" [i.e. their
semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has been demonstrated as
false.
Rather, it is the capabilities of Moto's _fabs_ [inadequate] which caused
their G4 plans to "balls up", quite distinct from your blaming "Motorola"
(i.e. their engineers)).
> In my opinion the G3 wins that.
So far; however, it's all about the fabs; you don't acknowledge that, for
some reason.
>stuck at 500Mhz fiasco
Then Apple should contract fabrication to IBM, or AMD, or TSMC...
[Edited by joey j on 11-23-2001 at 12:05 PM]
"> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.
... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary. "
your statements of yours made so far have been based on rumor, trying to prove something in a debate this close only determines one thing. that either opinion is good. But in this last quote you arent even basing your idea on rumor, you are basing it on your own assumption. And how can you say know specifically to the contrary? no-one knows, it was as assumption that you made up on the spot, how am i meant to know a fact about something like that. Backing up your facts like that is just plain ridiculous.
"> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac. "
That is another ridicolous comment, if you eliminate a bottleneck then you are increasing the overall speed of the system. You wont need to wait if you eliminate a bottleneck which is a bus. The processor can still process fast enough for the info to be sent through the bus without making the processor the bottleneck. The information will just run through it faster than before. Idle???
>Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is
likey to make a balls up of something. IBM is mega rich, wants to be a
bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models for each of the
upcoming powerpcs.
"This could be solved by a purchase from Moto of the PPC IP. Failing that,
if Apple shifts its focus to IBM, Moto will not need to develop
high-performance PPCs and may as well sell the IP to IBM or Apple anyway.
So either way, as long as IBM creates a useful, Altivec-compatible SIMD
unit to couple w/the PPC, there shouldn't be a problem. The problems lie
in the fabrication of the processors rather than the design (although the
attrition of engineers from Moto as reported by MOSR is worrying; the G3
was intended to have Altivec, the G4 a multicored design etc.) "
Agreed.
">The G4 looks scalable,
(7460 specifically?) That sounds like an aboutface, if I didn't know
better...
> but so did the 7450.
The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz. "
again you have split up my point, taking a part of it out of context.
the 7450 was only intended for 700-1000mhz? well since its release date in january i do believe can you tell me how far it has risen?
it isnt anywhere near the 1Ghz it is planning and it has been nearly 11months since its launch it has moved form 667 to 867 Mhz. that 200 whole Mhz. and it took 11 months. How is that for a bad moto recent history.
"(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor design.
both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls apart is
their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run reliably
at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM hasn't, but the
G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto. Hence if IBM can
get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that "Motorola" [i.e. their
semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has been demonstrated as
false. "
Im wasnt just speaking from the point of processor design,its besides the point, whether moto can or cant deesign a good cpu design the fact is that for the last 2 years it has produced below average cpus, for whatever reason. Yes probably the fabrication facilities. But not only that. I might remind you that the balls up on the 7400 was not just to do with the fab, IBM had to help alter its design and create a new G4 to be able to get past the blunder.
">value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays _once_
for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack thereof)
are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better float?];
surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?] "
You dont know it has a higher float seeing as IBMs so called altivec like acceleration has not been developed yet.
">Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck.
You are clearly basing your conclusion on the purported 400 mhz FSB of the
FX. If apple is planning for ~1.2ghz+ G4s they'll probably be planning
sufficiently fast FSBs. This 400 mhz FSB is probably a maximum anyway.
Would apple go from 100 mhz (i think) to 400?
Expect DDR ~266 in the pro G4 lines; SDR 133 in the imacs. "
"Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed. "
to discard a rumor and call it false or "its not going to happen" when all we can base our ideas on are these rumors is just madness. Whether you think it will be developed or not you must take it and debate using it, or you should just admit that is where both of us differ.
But you cant just turn it around, say it wont happen and then use it as a fact to back up your point.
This means 2 things, either you take in the rumor and say that the G3 will have less bottlenecks, or you say that in your opinion it wont happen.
I take the former, you take the latter.
">Marketability, both over a1Ghz.
In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor. "
Read the article and you will see that it is so far capable of speeds up to 1Ghz. The chip hasnt been made yet, it is still being developed. Only the expected performance has been released.
It can support up to 200Mhz bus.....so far.
If apple isnt going to use the G3 til next year on later then it can only mean this G3 is going to get better.
Again it depends whether you want to believe rumor or not. Rumor says it can go higher. IBM hasnt got that high yet, or so they say.
Which demonstrates why this discussion has got ridicoulous, you are trying to prove something which i can just turn back to you. Each of us is right, this is based on opinion whilst using rumors or statements to back up our opinion. you havent accepted this for some reson and you still think you are proving why you think you are right. No-one is right in this particular debate, it is too close to call. you say somehting to me, i respond equally as well. I say something to you, you respond equally as well.
Why dont you try to stop consistently thinking you are right and accept that this is too clos to call. It has not been one sided enough because the subjects are just too close for one to be the outright winner.
spikey, very well said
on anything too close to call, it is not a black and white issue as very little is in life, especially the IT field and other fellow techies on this board, mac and pc, know what i am talking about
and both joey and you have brought up great points, for anyone watching this last debate,for us to ponder
G3s and G4s are still viable as far as i can see this late in the game and only solid proof, like the next macworld's expo in san francisco, will let us know for sure
spikey, congrats in advance for 400...you wanna race?
on anything too close to call, it is not a black and white issue as very little is in life, especially the IT field and other fellow techies on this board, mac and pc, know what i am talking about
and both joey and you have brought up great points, for anyone watching this last debate,for us to ponder
G3s and G4s are still viable as far as i can see this late in the game and only solid proof, like the next macworld's expo in san francisco, will let us know for sure
spikey, congrats in advance for 400...you wanna race?
>>> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.
>> ... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary.
>your statements of yours made so far have been based on rumor,
"may very well have" <-- i'm speculating, I don't need rumor sites to help me speculate.
> trying to prove something in a debate this close only determines one
thing. that either opinion is good. But in this last quote you arent even
basing your idea on rumor, you are basing it on y our own assumption. And
how can you say know specifically to the contrary? no-one knows, it was as
assumption that you made up on the spot,
On the contrary, I have asserted the most commonsense solution (the 7460
is being designed to handle higher-clockspeed FSBs) to any high-multiplier
problem (your bottlenecking scenario) that arises for Apple. So while I am
indeed speculating, it is the most obvious scenario and hence a safe
speculation.
> how am i meant to know a fact about something like that.
I didn't ask nor expect you "to know a fact" about the above; I'm
speculating on the safe side.
> Backing up your facts like that is just plain ridiculous.
Hrmm?
> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac.
>That is another ridicolous comment,
/me mops up irony
>if you eliminate a bottleneck then you are increasing the overall speed of the system.
I am aware of that.
> You wont need to wait if you eliminate a bottleneck which is a bus. The
processor can still process fast enough for the info to be sent through
the bus without making the processor the bottleneck. The information will
just run through it faster than before.
I am aware also of that.
> Idle???
You appear to have completely missed my point. Let's say that Apple does
dramatically increase the imac's clockspeed and FSB speed. Now the hard
drive (say) is the bottleneck. Let's say apple ships faster HDs. Now the
IDE bus is the bottleneck...
>>> but so did the 7450.
>>The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz. "
>again you have split up my point, taking a part of it out of context.
Then would you put it into context for me?
>the 7450 was only intended for 700-1000mhz? well since its release date
in january i do believe can you tell me how far it has risen? it isnt
anywhere near the 1Ghz it is planning and it has been nearly 11months
since its launch it has moved form 667 to 867 Mhz. that 200 whole Mhz. and
it took 11 months. How is that for a bad moto recent history.
Once again you betray your inability to distinguish between Motorola's
engineers and their fabs. The "200 whole Mhz" is a moto fab issue. The
processor architecture itself is complete, and hence hardly indicative of
"a bad moto recent history".
>>"(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor
design. both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls
apart is their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run
reliably at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM
hasn't, but the G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto.
Hence if IBM can get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that
"Motorola" [i.e. their semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has
been demonstrated as false. "
>Im wasnt just speaking from the point of processor design,its besides the
point, whether moto can or cant deesign a good cpu design the fact is that
for the last 2 years it has produced below average cpus,
(*1*)
> for whatever reason. Yes probably the fabrication facilities.
(*2*)
spikey> "moto... has produced below average cpus" <---- (*1*)
spikey> "[the fault of] probably the fabrication facilities" <---- (*2*)
So you wander from blaming Motorola's engineers in 1) to their fabs in 2).
> But not only that. I might remind you that the balls up on the 7400 was
not just to do with the fab, IBM had to help alter its design and create a
new G4 to be able to get past the blunder.
On the contrary, the 7400 and 7410 are virtually the same
(http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC)... although it appears that they may have
rejiggered their site somewhat, it may be hard to find documentation.
>>>value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
>>The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays
_once_ for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack
thereof) are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better
float?]; surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?] "
>You dont know it has a higher float
On the contrary, the SPEC marks have given me a very good indication indeed.
> seeing as IBMs so called altivec like acceleration has not been
developed yet.
I fail to see what the G4s (or the G3's) float performance have to do with
IBM's SIMD work.
>>Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed.
>to discard a rumor and call it false or "its not going to happen" when
all we can base our ideas on are these rumors is just madness.
Learn to distinguish between what follows naturally ("if apple is going
for high clockspeeds in the 7460 the FSB will need to be fast to minimise
CPU idling") and what is unadulterated hogwash (your comments on the 400
mhz FSB that isn't even a _rumor_ and that ~100 mhz FSB --> 400 mhz FSB
doesn't follow naturally.)
> Whether you think it will be developed or not you must take it and
debate using it, or you should just admit that is wher e both of us
differ. But you cant just turn it around, say it wont happen and then use
it as a fact to back up your point. This means 2 things, either you take
in the rumor and say that the G3 will have less bottlenecks, or you say
that in your opinion it wont happen. I take the former, you take the
latter.
Your point would be valid if all speculations were equally valid. However
not all speculations are equally valid (above).
>>>Marketability, both over a1Ghz.
>>In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor. "
>Read the article and you will see that it is so far capable of speeds up
to 1Ghz.
I am aware of that. You asserted "over ... [1 GHz]" when even IBM did not
make that claim; I merely pointed that out.
> The chip hasnt been made yet, it is still being developed.
Not a whole lot of use to apple given tha the 7460 has been taped out
since ~august.
> Only the expected performance has been released. It can support up to
200Mhz bus.....so far.
Out of interest, where did this `400 mhz bus' thing come from?
> If apple isnt going to use the G3 til next year on later then it can
only mean this G3 is going to get better.
So far it appears as if the FX will be eclipsed by the 7460.
>Again it depends whether you want to believe rumor or not. Rumor says it
can go higher. IBM hasnt got that high yet, or so they say. Which
demonstrates why this discussion has got ridicoulous, you are trying to
prove something which i can just turn back to you. Each of us is right,
this is based on opinion whilst using rumors or statements to back up our
opinion. you havent accepted th is for some reson and you still think you
are proving why you think you are right. No-one is right in this
particular debate, it is too close to call. you say somehting to me, i
respond equally as well. I say something to you, you respond equally as
well.
>Why dont you try to stop consistently thinking you are right and accept
that this is too clos to call. It has not been one sided enough because
the subjects are just too close for one to be the outright winner.
I have much enjoyed your weaseling out. Once again, learn to distinguish
between the probable (7460 == high clockspeeds (therefore) apple will
design a faster FSB to keep up) and the improbable (`apple should use the
FX because of its 400 mhz bus'). Yes, they are both speculation, but one
is believable and one is ridiculous. Can you pick which one?
>> ... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary.
>your statements of yours made so far have been based on rumor,
"may very well have" <-- i'm speculating, I don't need rumor sites to help me speculate.
> trying to prove something in a debate this close only determines one
thing. that either opinion is good. But in this last quote you arent even
basing your idea on rumor, you are basing it on y our own assumption. And
how can you say know specifically to the contrary? no-one knows, it was as
assumption that you made up on the spot,
On the contrary, I have asserted the most commonsense solution (the 7460
is being designed to handle higher-clockspeed FSBs) to any high-multiplier
problem (your bottlenecking scenario) that arises for Apple. So while I am
indeed speculating, it is the most obvious scenario and hence a safe
speculation.
> how am i meant to know a fact about something like that.
I didn't ask nor expect you "to know a fact" about the above; I'm
speculating on the safe side.
> Backing up your facts like that is just plain ridiculous.
Hrmm?
> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.
Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac.
>That is another ridicolous comment,
/me mops up irony
>if you eliminate a bottleneck then you are increasing the overall speed of the system.
I am aware of that.
> You wont need to wait if you eliminate a bottleneck which is a bus. The
processor can still process fast enough for the info to be sent through
the bus without making the processor the bottleneck. The information will
just run through it faster than before.
I am aware also of that.
> Idle???
You appear to have completely missed my point. Let's say that Apple does
dramatically increase the imac's clockspeed and FSB speed. Now the hard
drive (say) is the bottleneck. Let's say apple ships faster HDs. Now the
IDE bus is the bottleneck...
>>> but so did the 7450.
>>The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz. "
>again you have split up my point, taking a part of it out of context.
Then would you put it into context for me?
>the 7450 was only intended for 700-1000mhz? well since its release date
in january i do believe can you tell me how far it has risen? it isnt
anywhere near the 1Ghz it is planning and it has been nearly 11months
since its launch it has moved form 667 to 867 Mhz. that 200 whole Mhz. and
it took 11 months. How is that for a bad moto recent history.
Once again you betray your inability to distinguish between Motorola's
engineers and their fabs. The "200 whole Mhz" is a moto fab issue. The
processor architecture itself is complete, and hence hardly indicative of
"a bad moto recent history".
>>"(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor
design. both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls
apart is their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run
reliably at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM
hasn't, but the G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto.
Hence if IBM can get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that
"Motorola" [i.e. their semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has
been demonstrated as false. "
>Im wasnt just speaking from the point of processor design,its besides the
point, whether moto can or cant deesign a good cpu design the fact is that
for the last 2 years it has produced below average cpus,
(*1*)
> for whatever reason. Yes probably the fabrication facilities.
(*2*)
spikey> "moto... has produced below average cpus" <---- (*1*)
spikey> "[the fault of] probably the fabrication facilities" <---- (*2*)
So you wander from blaming Motorola's engineers in 1) to their fabs in 2).
> But not only that. I might remind you that the balls up on the 7400 was
not just to do with the fab, IBM had to help alter its design and create a
new G4 to be able to get past the blunder.
On the contrary, the 7400 and 7410 are virtually the same
(http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC)... although it appears that they may have
rejiggered their site somewhat, it may be hard to find documentation.
>>>value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.
>>The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays
_once_ for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack
thereof) are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better
float?]; surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?] "
>You dont know it has a higher float
On the contrary, the SPEC marks have given me a very good indication indeed.
> seeing as IBMs so called altivec like acceleration has not been
developed yet.
I fail to see what the G4s (or the G3's) float performance have to do with
IBM's SIMD work.
>>Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed.
>to discard a rumor and call it false or "its not going to happen" when
all we can base our ideas on are these rumors is just madness.
Learn to distinguish between what follows naturally ("if apple is going
for high clockspeeds in the 7460 the FSB will need to be fast to minimise
CPU idling") and what is unadulterated hogwash (your comments on the 400
mhz FSB that isn't even a _rumor_ and that ~100 mhz FSB --> 400 mhz FSB
doesn't follow naturally.)
> Whether you think it will be developed or not you must take it and
debate using it, or you should just admit that is wher e both of us
differ. But you cant just turn it around, say it wont happen and then use
it as a fact to back up your point. This means 2 things, either you take
in the rumor and say that the G3 will have less bottlenecks, or you say
that in your opinion it wont happen. I take the former, you take the
latter.
Your point would be valid if all speculations were equally valid. However
not all speculations are equally valid (above).
>>>Marketability, both over a1Ghz.
>>In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor. "
>Read the article and you will see that it is so far capable of speeds up
to 1Ghz.
I am aware of that. You asserted "over ... [1 GHz]" when even IBM did not
make that claim; I merely pointed that out.
> The chip hasnt been made yet, it is still being developed.
Not a whole lot of use to apple given tha the 7460 has been taped out
since ~august.
> Only the expected performance has been released. It can support up to
200Mhz bus.....so far.
Out of interest, where did this `400 mhz bus' thing come from?
> If apple isnt going to use the G3 til next year on later then it can
only mean this G3 is going to get better.
So far it appears as if the FX will be eclipsed by the 7460.
>Again it depends whether you want to believe rumor or not. Rumor says it
can go higher. IBM hasnt got that high yet, or so they say. Which
demonstrates why this discussion has got ridicoulous, you are trying to
prove something which i can just turn back to you. Each of us is right,
this is based on opinion whilst using rumors or statements to back up our
opinion. you havent accepted th is for some reson and you still think you
are proving why you think you are right. No-one is right in this
particular debate, it is too close to call. you say somehting to me, i
respond equally as well. I say something to you, you respond equally as
well.
>Why dont you try to stop consistently thinking you are right and accept
that this is too clos to call. It has not been one sided enough because
the subjects are just too close for one to be the outright winner.
I have much enjoyed your weaseling out. Once again, learn to distinguish
between the probable (7460 == high clockspeeds (therefore) apple will
design a faster FSB to keep up) and the improbable (`apple should use the
FX because of its 400 mhz bus'). Yes, they are both speculation, but one
is believable and one is ridiculous. Can you pick which one?
joey, congrats on full member!
joey,
congrats on your 30, you did it in record time from what i have seen
...also did you see spikey beat me with those short posts?
jeez, next forum war, i will be on your side whether you are right or wrong
wait, i am on your side, if i can get the money up, i will get that G4 running imac
joey,
congrats on your 30, you did it in record time from what i have seen
...also did you see spikey beat me with those short posts?
jeez, next forum war, i will be on your side whether you are right or wrong
wait, i am on your side, if i can get the money up, i will get that G4 running imac
Re: joey, congrats on full member!
jefhatfield> joey,
congrats on your 30, you did it in record time from what i have seen
Thanks. The posts just kept piling up did they not; I didn't believe I
was at `27' posts until I re-read the rest. I was thinking more like ~15
posts
>...also did you see spikey beat me with those short posts?
The sneaky...
>jeez, next forum war, i will be on your side whether you are right or
wrong
Ah, but I thought you were The Neutral Guy? jef "switzerland sweden
lebanon" hatfield? [okay maybe not lebanon so much...]
>wait, i am on your side,
Aha. My supporters are emerging from the proverbial woodwork
> if i can get the money up, i will get that G4 running imac
I'm just waiting for the G5s so I can replace this mac here. It needs
to be put out to pasture, doing my firewalling and proxying, nat, local
dns maybe... nothing too stressful
jefhatfield> joey,
congrats on your 30, you did it in record time from what i have seen
Thanks. The posts just kept piling up did they not; I didn't believe Iwas at `27' posts until I re-read the rest. I was thinking more like ~15
posts
>...also did you see spikey beat me with those short posts?
The sneaky...
>jeez, next forum war, i will be on your side whether you are right or
wrong
Ah, but I thought you were The Neutral Guy? jef "switzerland sweden
lebanon" hatfield? [okay maybe not lebanon so much...]
>wait, i am on your side,
Aha. My supporters are emerging from the proverbial woodwork
> if i can get the money up, i will get that G4 running imac
I'm just waiting for the G5s so I can replace this mac here. It needs
to be put out to pasture, doing my firewalling and proxying, nat, local
dns maybe... nothing too stressful