Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Power Mac G5 Developer Note

I think I figured it out.

The codename for the G5 processor is Neo.

Neo, in The Matrix, represents Christ.

Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.

The Omega (Power Mac G5) would logically also have an Alpha, perhaps the PowerBook G5.

Maybe?
 
Re: Re: for bandwidth, not register size

Originally posted by daveL
Note, however, that the G4 and P4 transfer 64 bits per bus cycle *in one direction only*, i.e. a read OR a write. The G5 transfers 32 bits per bus cycle, but it can perform a 32 bit read AND a 32 bit write in the same cycle.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that the bus speeds are not the same on the G4/P4 vs the G5. With a 64 bit one way transfer at 167MHz, a G5 could have done 6 32bit transfer one way, and 6 the other way.

If its a one data-in, one data-out contest, the G5 is ahead by 10!!!
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The codename for the G5 processor is Neo.
Click to expand...

Thats not the codename... thats the marketing name... much like Altivec is the marketing name for the Velocity Engine, which is the marketing name for VMX.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
Thats not the codename... thats the marketing name... much like Altivec is the marketing name for the Velocity Engine, which is the marketing name for VMX.
Click to expand...

Apple's marketing name for it is G5. IBM's name for it is 970. The Apple codename for it is Neo.

With Altivec, Motorola's name for it is Altivec (formerly VMX) while Apple's marketing name for it is Velocity Engine.
 
Originally posted by ryan
Slightly off-topic but thank you for calling the 980 what it is, vapor-ware!
Click to expand...

No, vaporware is when it's announced and not released. This is just a rumor. Neither announced nor released.
 
Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by Phinius
Apple has stated that the G5 will go to 3 GHz within a year. That means a bus that runs at 1.5 GHz, which translates into requiring dual channel 666 MHz DDR-II memory running at 1.33 GHz to keep pace with a 2-1 ratio of cpu to bus speed.

Looking at what I have seen for Intel's roadmap, I'd expect the Pentium processors to be using 533 MHz memory when Apple releases a 3 GHz G5 with 666 MHz memory.
Click to expand...

The current G5 Dual/2GHz doesn't run a 2-1 ram to system bus ratio. The system bus is 1GHz and the RAM is DDR400 which equals 800MHz.
 
Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by MacBandit
The current G5 Dual/2GHz doesn't run a 2-1 ram to system bus ratio. The system bus is 1GHz and the RAM is DDR400 which equals 800MHz.
Click to expand...

If the bus is at 1 Ghz then would it not make sense to install PC4000 DDR RAM that runs at 500 MHz on the dual 2 GHz model for optimal performance? It should be available when the G5 ships.
 
Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by MacBandit
The current G5 Dual/2GHz doesn't run a 2-1 ram to system bus ratio. The system bus is 1GHz and the RAM is DDR400 which equals 800MHz.
Click to expand...

I thought DDR400 equaled 400 MHz, ie 200 MHz dual-pumped.
 
Re: Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I thought DDR400 equaled 400 MHz, ie 200 MHz dual-pumped.
Click to expand...

Does this mean the system performance of the Dual 2 GHz G5 can be improved by installing memory with speeds up to 1 Ghz? Imagine this system 2 years down the line:
Dual 3 GHz G5 (980 processors)
16 GB PC15000 DDR (1.5 GHz)
2 x 500 GB Serial ATA Hard Drives
Apple Cinema HD Display

All for around $5K :)
 
Re: Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I thought DDR400 equaled 400 MHz, ie 200 MHz dual-pumped.
Click to expand...

That's correct the native speed of DDR400 ram is 200MHz but it reads on the rise and fall of the clock cycle in affect doubling the data throughput to the equivalent of 400MHz. On the upper two PowerMacs the DDR400 RAM is in two banks and but each slot is paired with another one on the other bank and those pairs are read asa one. This pairing is called use to be called interleaving but is now called Dual Channel. I'm not sure there is a difference between the old name and the new name in actual function as the both give you an equivalent of double the speed of the ram. Thus DDR400 in a Dual Channel setup gives you a supposed throughput equivalency of 800MHz.
 
Re: Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by Macurious
If the bus is at 1 Ghz then would it not make sense to install PC4000 DDR RAM that runs at 500 MHz on the dual 2 GHz model for optimal performance? It should be available when the G5 ships.
Click to expand...

RAM does not need to equal the FSB. In fact it is better for the FSB to always outpace RAM since the processors also communicate over their FSB's with each other and with other devices. That way the FSB can handle the Aggregate of the fast RAM and the other devices also competing for the processor's time. The G5 brings us into a new architectural world, were all the old limits have been shattered. The G5's architecture is perfectly balanced with the entire system and not just the RAM. What a far cry from the G4 and really almost all Wintel architectures.

I know it is hard, but we have to erase from our minds the old way of measuring the peformance of the system. The G5 is a radically new design and the industry hasn't fully digested it yet. It's OK that the fastest RAM out there is still slower than the FSB. Who would have ever thought that that would have been a problem, what a nice problem to have :) !
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by MacBandit
That's correct the native speed of DDR400 ram is 200MHz but it reads on the rise and fall of the clock cycle in affect doubling the data throughput to the equivalent of 400MHz. On the upper two PowerMacs the DDR400 RAM is in two banks and but each slot is paired with another one on the other bank and those pairs are read asa one. This pairing is called use to be called interleaving but is now called Dual Channel. I'm not sure there is a difference between the old name and the new name in actual function as the both give you an equivalent of double the speed of the ram. Thus DDR400 in a Dual Channel setup gives you a supposed throughput equivalency of 800MHz.
Click to expand...

Excellent! Thanks for the clarification!
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
You must be a PC person worrying about viruses and all? Last I heard the only virus on OSX was a text file that is sent by email that says, "Please delete all your important files and send this on. This is a voluntary virus that can only continue with your help.".
Click to expand...

I wish I could share your confidence on invulnerable Software. if you subscribe to any Open source Security newsletter, you will soon find out that your security feeling is based on nothing but thin air.
I had a worm on my system already. It creaped in via - mind the irony - the SSL socket of apache.
The debian newsletter had 5 security anouncements only this week.
 
Re: Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by Macurious
If the bus is at 1 Ghz then would it not make sense to install PC4000 DDR RAM that runs at 500 MHz on the dual 2 GHz model for optimal performance? It should be available when the G5 ships.
Click to expand...
Kingston just announced PC4000 today. It wasn't available a couple weeks ago (Kingston claims they are the first to market)
PC4000 costs about twice what PC 3200 costs and it's currently only been announced in modules up to 512MB ...

No, it wouldn't have been good to ship the dual G5 with PC4000. Maybe next year.
 
not quite

Originally posted by Frohickey
Its not going to fit, physically.
Click to expand...

No, it will fit. The main difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is the fact the AGP 4x supports 3 volt and 1.5 volt cards while AGP 8X only supports 1.5 volt cards.
For this reason, AGP 4x slots can support older 2x (3 volt) cards, while AGP 8x slots only support 8x and 1.5 volt 4x cards.

The only physical differences in AGP cards are the Pro variety which draw more power from the motherboard. Pro slots can accept Pro cards or regular cards.

AFAIK, the G5 ships with AGP 8X pro allowing it to support 4x 1.5 volt, 4x Pro 1.5 volt, 8x, and 8x Pro cards.
 
Re: Scary

Originally posted by Rico
With the G5 code name of Neo ('The One'; 'The Messiah'; etc.
Click to expand...

Um, little too much Matrix... too little culture.

from Webster.com:
One entry found for ne-.

Main Entry: ne-
Variant(s): or neo-
Function: combining form
Etymology: Greek, from neos new -- more at NEW
1 a : new : recent <Neogene> b : new and different period or form of <Neoplatonism> : in a new and different form or manner <Neoplatonic> c : New World <Neotropical> d : new and abnormal <neoplasm>
 
Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by Phinius
Apple has stated that the G5 will go to 3 GHz within a year. That means a bus that runs at 1.5 GHz, which translates into requiring dual channel 666 MHz DDR-II memory running at 1.33 GHz to keep pace with a 2-1 ratio of cpu to bus speed.
Click to expand...

No one every said the CPU to Bus ratio MUST be 2:1. It's only 2:1 now because they can do it.
I'm pretty sure the 970 supports .5 increments for bus multipliers.
A 2.5:1 or 3:1 multiplier would allow a 2.5GHz and 3GHz part on a 1GHz bus.

Given the current Apple's bus spread [800, 900, 1GHz]... We could see chips at:
2.25GHz, 2.4GHz, 2.5GHz, 2.8GHz, 3GHz

If Apple could push out a 1.1 GHz (or maybe 1.2 GHz) bus down the line, the options increase even more.
The only down side would be that you may have a faster clocked machine with a slightly slower bus.
 
I know exactly what "neo" means. I'm just saying that it's more likely that Apple engineers, being as in tune with pop culture (or at least popular sci-fi) as they are, would code name a processor after Neo, from The Matrix.

If you don't believe me, consider that past code names at Apple had similar references (the Mac Plus was Mr. T, the PowerBook Duo was BOB W after the Star Trek: TNG episode "Best of Both Worlds", etc.)
 
Originally posted by visor
I wish I could share your confidence on invulnerable Software. if you subscribe to any Open source Security newsletter, you will soon find out that your security feeling is based on nothing but thin air.
I had a worm on my system already. It creaped in via - mind the irony - the SSL socket of apache.
The debian newsletter had 5 security anouncements only this week.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't reply to the earlier response. Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to convey in written communication.
 
Re: not quite

Originally posted by ffakr
No, it will fit. The main difference between AGP 4x and AGP 8x is the fact the AGP 4x supports 3 volt and 1.5 volt cards while AGP 8X only supports 1.5 volt cards.
For this reason, AGP 4x slots can support older 2x (3 volt) cards, while AGP 8x slots only support 8x and 1.5 volt 4x cards.

The only physical differences in AGP cards are the Pro variety which draw more power from the motherboard. Pro slots can accept Pro cards or regular cards.

AFAIK, the G5 ships with AGP 8X pro allowing it to support 4x 1.5 volt, 4x Pro 1.5 volt, 8x, and 8x Pro cards.
Click to expand...

I tell you that it will NOT fit, but it has nothing to do with whether is 1.5v, 3.3v or AGP 4x or AGP 8x.

The AGP in the G5s are AGP 3.0, with an AGP Pro connector.

Sure enough, AGP 4x runs at 1.5v only, and could either follow the AGP 2.0 or AGP 3.0, which is a subset of AGP 2.0.

AGP 8x runs at 1.5v only, and only follows AGP 3.0.

Since a picture is worth a few hundred words (damn inflation ;), check this out...


Do you see that small little piece of board with copper at the back behind the AGP contacts? Its above the letters Fo of GeForce4. That little piece of board with copper contacts is going to hit the plastic on the AGP Pro connector.

BTW, your comment about AGP 4x running at 3.3v and 1.5v is wrong. AGP 2.0 supports 3.3v and 1.5v, but 3.3v is only for 1x and 2x, 4x HAS TO BE 1.5v.

Check it out for yourself.
AGP 2.0 Spec, page 166.
AGP 2.0 Spec, page 39.

The G5 is either a AGP3.0 Motherboard or a Universal 1.5V AGP3.0 Motherboard (Universal 1.5V AGP3.0). These two are the only choices for 1.5v (and no 3.3v) and goes up to 8x.

Why can't Intel come up with a handy cheatsheet as to what the various flavors of AGP are.... lets see... 3.3v PCI mode, 3.3v AGP 1.0 1x, 3.3v AGP 1.0 2x, 3.3v AGP 2.0 1x, 3.3v AGP 2.0 2x, 1.5v AGP 2.0 1x, 1.5v AGP 2.0 2x, 1.5v AGP 2.0 4x, 1.5v AGP 3.0 4x, 1.5v AGP 3.0 8x. There maybe more that I forgot about.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple should be using 666 MHz memory within a year

Originally posted by stingerman
RAM does not need to equal the FSB. In fact it is better for the FSB to always outpace RAM since the processors also communicate over their FSB's with each other and with other devices. That way the FSB can handle the Aggregate of the fast RAM and the other devices also competing for the processor's time. The G5 brings us into a new architectural world, were all the old limits have been shattered. The G5's architecture is perfectly balanced with the entire system and not just the RAM. What a far cry from the G4 and really almost all Wintel architectures.

I know it is hard, but we have to erase from our minds the old way of measuring the peformance of the system. The G5 is a radically new design and the industry hasn't fully digested it yet. It's OK that the fastest RAM out there is still slower than the FSB. Who would have ever thought that that would have been a problem, what a nice problem to have :) !
Click to expand...


Thank you so much for shedding the light. (Saved me the trouble.) The entire archtecture of the computer, it's case design, cooling, dual controllers designed by apple but built in the same high tech IBM facilities as the G5 itself; there is nothing that can compete with this feat of engineering. At this point, it doesn't even *matter* if the PCs have machines that with their archaic archetectures that are faster... They can't compete with this, and this archetecture is still in its infancy. See the writing on the wall?

Macs will start competing with SGI's and unix workstations, leaving the *consumer* macs to compete with the PCs, if Apple plays this trend to its potential. It's only a matter of time.

And to compete with the Unix Servers, there will be XServe. Apple is finally *starting* to get serious about Professional and Enterprise markets, instead of just Consumer and Education. Let's hope this keeps up and has great follow through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back