Well, I think this a pretty much a given. Even a 1.2GHz G5 PowerBook would likely have a 600MHz FSB.
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.
A Mobile 64-bit PowerPC?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I think this a pretty much a given. Even a 1.2GHz G5 PowerBook would likely have a 600MHz FSB.
I think any discussion of AltiVec is relatively pointless. Apple has far too much invested in the "Velocity Engine" to turn away from it. There is no doubt in my mind that any new chip that Apple uses, for the foreseeable future, will have to have AltiVec.
AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
Don't you think Apple might be willing to sacrifice AltiVec (hopefully, only temporarily) in order to currently kick up the clock speed to 3GHz and at least partially solve their serious problem with heat and power?
Why stay with a G5 130nm when Apple can readily boost performance with an off the shelf (because IBM is going to make them, regardless of what Apple says or does) IBM chip at 90nm and 3GHz?
The real question will be answered by Apple R&D comparing performance and cost of a 3GHz without AltiVec with the new 2.5GHz with AltiVec, while continuing to lobby IBM for incorporation of AltiVec into chips in the future.
What if Apple finds that it can put small, cool, fast (3GHz) non-AltiVec IBM 90nm chips into PowerBooks?
The larger, slower, hotter G5 with AltiVec won't work in a PB, unless Apple comes up with a motorized circulating radiator and external trap door to add dry ice every 3 hours, along with a 2 pound snap on battery to handle the power demand.
Besides Photoshop, what other Mac software is
(1) written for and
(2) really depends on AltiVec technology?
FinalCut Pro 4?
How does the speed assist of AltiVec in a G5 compare with NEWER smaller 64-bit IBM chips having raw clock speed?
Frankly, for Macs to avoid succumbing to Intel chips, Apple will have to follow where IBM technology leads.
How many computers does Apple sell a month? 100,000?
Dell sells 100,000 computers per DAY.
The number of chips IBM sells to Apple is almost meaningless compared to other computer manufacturers. The market dictates.
While I agree with the importance Apple places in its Velocity Engine, and its commitment to persuading IBM to design AltiVec technology into the chips Apple wants to buy, I really do not think that Apple's position is that absolute.
Don't you think Apple might be willing to sacrifice AltiVec (hopefully, only temporarily) in order to currently kick up the clock speed to 3GHz and at least partially solve their serious problem with heat and power?
Why stay with a G5 130nm when Apple can readily boost performance with an off the shelf (because IBM is going to make them, regardless of what Apple says or does) IBM chip at 90nm and 3GHz?
The real question will be answered by Apple R&D comparing performance and cost of a 3GHz without AltiVec with the new 2.5GHz with AltiVec, while continuing to lobby IBM for incorporation of AltiVec into chips in the future.
What if Apple finds that it can put small, cool, fast (3GHz) non-AltiVec IBM 90nm chips into PowerBooks?
The larger, slower, hotter G5 with AltiVec won't work in a PB, unless Apple comes up with a motorized circulating radiator and external trap door to add dry ice every 3 hours, along with a 2 pound snap on battery to handle the power demand.
Besides Photoshop, what other Mac software is
(1) written for and
(2) really depends on AltiVec technology?
FinalCut Pro 4?
How does the speed assist of AltiVec in a G5 compare with NEWER smaller 64-bit IBM chips having raw clock speed?
Frankly, for Macs to avoid succumbing to Intel chips, Apple will have to follow where IBM technology leads.
How many computers does Apple sell a month? 100,000?
Dell sells 100,000 computers per DAY.
The number of chips IBM sells to Apple is almost meaningless compared to other computer manufacturers. The market dictates.
Re: A Mobile 64-bit PowerPC?
If true this is the final nail in the Motorola coffin. The main benefit of the G4 (and the IBM G3) is power efficiency and low temperature in tight spaces.
Rocketman
If true this is the final nail in the Motorola coffin. The main benefit of the G4 (and the IBM G3) is power efficiency and low temperature in tight spaces.
Rocketman
A Mobile 64-bit PowerPC? MOTOROLA...not!
Things change...
MOTOROLA has reportedly had their computer chip division up for sale since early this year, if not before. For Apple, Motorola is no longer a serious source consideration.
Things change...
Motorola was able to reduce power and heat in the same 130 NM process with their G4 7447 by 40%. So die shrinkage is not the only way to accomplish this.
IBM can still get a lot out of the 130 NM process by optimizing their design. The 970 really is only their first generation take at a desktop 64-bit processor, and they did an awesome job. But, we can expect version 2 at the higher clock rates to be a more refined design.
As far a 90NM process, IBM has done more than just shrink the chip, they are using newer materials, better layout, and they are adding a new power management system called PowerTune. Maybe they will even throw in a memory controller (my hope, nothing to support that in the 970.) it seems the 90NM 970 is being built for the Powerbook and iMac market. I believe the 130NM processor has a lot more life to it and within the 130NM process can go to 3+GHz. The G5 case can certainly accommodate a fan right on the processor.
IBM can still get a lot out of the 130 NM process by optimizing their design. The 970 really is only their first generation take at a desktop 64-bit processor, and they did an awesome job. But, we can expect version 2 at the higher clock rates to be a more refined design.
As far a 90NM process, IBM has done more than just shrink the chip, they are using newer materials, better layout, and they are adding a new power management system called PowerTune. Maybe they will even throw in a memory controller (my hope, nothing to support that in the 970.) it seems the 90NM 970 is being built for the Powerbook and iMac market. I believe the 130NM processor has a lot more life to it and within the 130NM process can go to 3+GHz. The G5 case can certainly accommodate a fan right on the processor.
Why the round wafer of chips?
stingerman, good to hear about their being lots of life left in the current IBM G5 chip even at 130 nm.
So, the Big Mac G5 SuperComputer at Virginia Tech is made out of a cluster of 2200 IBM proto chips?
Next generation is the real thing?
WHY ROUND?
I've seen images of the manufacturing process at IBM where a ROUND disk containing hundreds of G5 chips is dipped, dried and ...processed by a robotic system, and then cut up to make the individual G5 chips.
Since there is so much waste on the edges of the circular DISK containing rectangular chips,
why is it ROUND?
stingerman, good to hear about their being lots of life left in the current IBM G5 chip even at 130 nm.
So, the Big Mac G5 SuperComputer at Virginia Tech is made out of a cluster of 2200 IBM proto chips?
Next generation is the real thing?
WHY ROUND?
I've seen images of the manufacturing process at IBM where a ROUND disk containing hundreds of G5 chips is dipped, dried and ...processed by a robotic system, and then cut up to make the individual G5 chips.
Since there is so much waste on the edges of the circular DISK containing rectangular chips,
why is it ROUND?
Re: Why the round wafer of chips?
Imagine a Gx PB with a wafer-ful of processing cores (and associated memory/interface logic)... If you really think about it, there is not very much space currently allocated to the CPU in a laptop... How many processor cores could fit on a wafer??? OK, cooling and battery life would be an issue... But probably not as much of an issue for a lot of low power "modest" cores than for a single "screamingly hot" (nitrogen cooled?) G5 core...
...there's more than one way to get to 1 teraflop!
Originally posted by MacRAND
stingerman, good to hear about their being lots of life left in the current IBM G5 chip even at 130 nm.
So, the Big Mac G5 SuperComputer at Virginia Tech is made out of a cluster of 2200 IBM proto chips?
Next generation is the real thing?
WHY ROUND?
I've seen images of the manufacturing process at IBM where a ROUND disk containing hundreds of G5 chips is dipped, dried and ...processed by a robotic system, and then cut up to make the individual G5 chips.
Since there is so much waste on the edges of the circular DISK containing rectangular chips,
why is it ROUND?
Imagine a Gx PB with a wafer-ful of processing cores (and associated memory/interface logic)... If you really think about it, there is not very much space currently allocated to the CPU in a laptop... How many processor cores could fit on a wafer??? OK, cooling and battery life would be an issue... But probably not as much of an issue for a lot of low power "modest" cores than for a single "screamingly hot" (nitrogen cooled?) G5 core...
...there's more than one way to get to 1 teraflop!
Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
What one has to realize is that the current vector units that Apple has available to it, simply are not fast enough. They aren't fast enough at 2GHz and they won't be fast enough at 3GHz so unless Apple has a viable alternative to replace the current vector units they won't be going anywhere.
Now Apple could very well extend the vector units or come up with a more effiecent way to execute vector instructions but it would be extremely foolish to drop the capability. While a low cost chip may fit into some product lines it would have to have the capability of at least executing vector instructions. Generally though you don't see many successful processors that have regressed performance wise. Even Intels Centrino system provides a performance boost over the alternatives.
With the above considerations out of the way we have to consider if we even know that the vector unit is slowing the processor itself down. At the moment we have no solid evidence that this is the case. Even if the vector unit was slowing the rest of the porcessor, the smart thing would be to simply run it at half the main unit speed not deletion fo the functionality.
As far as small, fast, no vector unit, G5's in Powerbooks - they would never sell. Just look a few years back in the developement of the laptop. Regression has never sold well. Beyond that, the machine would not support Apples latest software devlopments, so what good would it be. About the only place the chip would have any potential is in a scalled down iBook. That is only because I believe that the iBook serves a market that is narrowly defined and not sensitive to peformance. But that is garbage anyways as Apple has already played its cards with respect to vector operation on the current iBooks.
Now don't get me wrong you could potentially get performance equal to an Alt-vec based machine with a fast enough processor. But we are talking much faster that 3GHz. If we do hit 3GHz soon, one 970 based hardware, all that means is that a vectorless processor would have to be even faster.
As far as what will and won't work in a laptop, that is an open question. Apple could have a low power version that will work or they could be doing something smarter like making an Application specific processor. By that I mean a high integration processor optimized for low power. Frankly no one really knows what direction Apple is going here other than their publicly stated position that we should not expect a G5 (970) based laptop soon. This could mean a couple of things: 1 is that we are beating Motorola with dead fish and expect to have 2GHz G4's soon. 2 is that we have something up our sleeve that you don't have a clue about. 3. is that we are just waiting for a low power 970. Maybe even Steve doesn't know.
What I do know is that the Powerbook is in the same position as the G4 Macs where a couple of years ago. That is the overall user experience, based on hardware performance, is about to be eclipsed by the Intel world. Not a good thing for Apple considering the chages in the market.
Thanks
Dave
What one has to realize is that the current vector units that Apple has available to it, simply are not fast enough. They aren't fast enough at 2GHz and they won't be fast enough at 3GHz so unless Apple has a viable alternative to replace the current vector units they won't be going anywhere.
Now Apple could very well extend the vector units or come up with a more effiecent way to execute vector instructions but it would be extremely foolish to drop the capability. While a low cost chip may fit into some product lines it would have to have the capability of at least executing vector instructions. Generally though you don't see many successful processors that have regressed performance wise. Even Intels Centrino system provides a performance boost over the alternatives.
With the above considerations out of the way we have to consider if we even know that the vector unit is slowing the processor itself down. At the moment we have no solid evidence that this is the case. Even if the vector unit was slowing the rest of the porcessor, the smart thing would be to simply run it at half the main unit speed not deletion fo the functionality.
As far as small, fast, no vector unit, G5's in Powerbooks - they would never sell. Just look a few years back in the developement of the laptop. Regression has never sold well. Beyond that, the machine would not support Apples latest software devlopments, so what good would it be. About the only place the chip would have any potential is in a scalled down iBook. That is only because I believe that the iBook serves a market that is narrowly defined and not sensitive to peformance. But that is garbage anyways as Apple has already played its cards with respect to vector operation on the current iBooks.
Now don't get me wrong you could potentially get performance equal to an Alt-vec based machine with a fast enough processor. But we are talking much faster that 3GHz. If we do hit 3GHz soon, one 970 based hardware, all that means is that a vectorless processor would have to be even faster.
As far as what will and won't work in a laptop, that is an open question. Apple could have a low power version that will work or they could be doing something smarter like making an Application specific processor. By that I mean a high integration processor optimized for low power. Frankly no one really knows what direction Apple is going here other than their publicly stated position that we should not expect a G5 (970) based laptop soon. This could mean a couple of things: 1 is that we are beating Motorola with dead fish and expect to have 2GHz G4's soon. 2 is that we have something up our sleeve that you don't have a clue about. 3. is that we are just waiting for a low power 970. Maybe even Steve doesn't know.
What I do know is that the Powerbook is in the same position as the G4 Macs where a couple of years ago. That is the overall user experience, based on hardware performance, is about to be eclipsed by the Intel world. Not a good thing for Apple considering the chages in the market.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by MacRAND
While I agree with the importance Apple places in its Velocity Engine, and its commitment to persuading IBM to design AltiVec technology into the chips Apple wants to buy, I really do not think that Apple's position is that absolute.
Don't you think Apple might be willing to sacrifice AltiVec (hopefully, only temporarily) in order to currently kick up the clock speed to 3GHz and at least partially solve their serious problem with heat and power?
Why stay with a G5 130nm when Apple can readily boost performance with an off the shelf (because IBM is going to make them, regardless of what Apple says or does) IBM chip at 90nm and 3GHz?
The real question will be answered by Apple R&D comparing performance and cost of a 3GHz without AltiVec with the new 2.5GHz with AltiVec, while continuing to lobby IBM for incorporation of AltiVec into chips in the future.
What if Apple finds that it can put small, cool, fast (3GHz) non-AltiVec IBM 90nm chips into PowerBooks?
The larger, slower, hotter G5 with AltiVec won't work in a PB, unless Apple comes up with a motorized circulating radiator and external trap door to add dry ice every 3 hours, along with a 2 pound snap on battery to handle the power demand.
Besides Photoshop, what other Mac software is
(1) written for and
(2) really depends on AltiVec technology?
FinalCut Pro 4?
How does the speed assist of AltiVec in a G5 compare with NEWER smaller 64-bit IBM chips having raw clock speed?
Frankly, for Macs to avoid succumbing to Intel chips, Apple will have to follow where IBM technology leads.
How many computers does Apple sell a month? 100,000?
Dell sells 100,000 computers per DAY.
The number of chips IBM sells to Apple is almost meaningless compared to other computer manufacturers. The market dictates.
Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
As for what else uses it try many math libraries and the OS itself. The benefits of any SIMD unit, even SSE2 which isn't close to Altivec, are sizable. There's no modern desktop microprocessor without a SIMD unit and there's a very good reason for that.
You're assuming altivec is the or even a major cause of the power issues and that's nonsense. Altivec is not being removed and is here to stay in all future chip designs.
As for what else uses it try many math libraries and the OS itself. The benefits of any SIMD unit, even SSE2 which isn't close to Altivec, are sizable. There's no modern desktop microprocessor without a SIMD unit and there's a very good reason for that.
AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
Dave the Wizard,
When you talk about "vector" units and such, please explain to us non-tech Mac users, does that relate directly to AltiVec (vector)? Is the "velocity engine" a vector accelarator? Kindly enlighten us non-tech nerds.
Can anyone expand on this?
Without assuming anything about the necessity of AltiVec, if IBM is hell bent on refining speed and efficiency on chips it makes for its own servers and for other users (Apple is only one of many, many customers), how likely is it that IBM will produce heat and current efficient chips that do not incorporate AltiVec?
This line of thought comes from the newly announced supercomputer unit (reportedly about the size of a dishwasher) Blue Gene/L (which IBM intends to be but one of 128 units in the 350Tflop supercomputer it is planning to install for Lawrence Livermore Labs in 2005). The whole supercomputer comprised of these 128 units of Blue Gene/L is reportedly 10x faster than #1 NEC Earth Simulator 35Tflops, but occupies about 1/8th the space. It has also been designed to be heat and current efficient.
Bottom line is that IBM is going to follow the tricky path of technological advancement towards greater efficiency and power. Achieving that, might AltiVec technology become irrelevant to IBM's goals despite Apple's needs?
When I compared Apple's sales to computer sales giant Dell, I mean to imply that Apple doesn't wield a very big stick with super giant IBM in the industrial scheme of things computer. And, it won't until it grabs a bigger market share and more than doubles its sales of computers (ignore the adorable iPod).
Having started out with a Mac LC in the late 1980's, I am ecstatic over the snappy performance of Panther on my G4 dual 1GHz for those things I do on a computer to earn a living as an attorney. A G4 is just plain awesome.
Panther is so snappy, I have to be careful what I touch or drag with my cursor - files disappear into some desktop folder accidentially because my finger twitches, so I have to use the Finder to find it. On a MacLC, I never dreamed that could ever be a problem.
Now, if I was a professional video editor (I do use FCPro3 and iDVD a bit) or into designing media with Adobe products, especially Photoshop, and my financial health depended on number crunching speed, then I'd worry about whether I should get a G5 dual 2GHz now, or maybe wait until February to see what the 2.5 GHz machines are like probably for the same $3,000 top level entry fee. But my living depends on word documents and spreadsheets and I only get "intellectually" excited over the prospective availability of 3 GHz plus machines.
Thank you, Apple, my G4 provides me with all the speed I need.
I love my iSight, my several color printers, but most of all I love the convenience of my two DYMO LabelWriter printers.
DYMO 330 prints beautiful Shipping Labels and the
DYMO 330 Turbo prints file folder labels at "turbo" speed.
I got 2 LabelWriters because I'm too lazy to change the labels on just one machine, unless it's to print something else - like VHS video spines, audio cassettes, or labels for ID tags.
Now I'm looking to spend money on a large Cinema Display, an SLR digital camera that has interchangable lenses, a better DV camcorder, or an upgrade in software.
When am I likely to feel the NEED to move to G5 (or, by then G6)?
Probably when the software I love or want is only compatible on a 64-bit Mac.
Compatibility with better software is what persuaded me to leave 68040 Motorola chips for IBM PPC 604, and eventually to G3 and G4. My G4 already has an added USB 2.0 PCI board, Bluetooth for my cellphone, and is tied to a wireless AirPort Extreme network that works well with a TCP/IP router to cable access, I just don't understand how or why. I don't need FireWire 800 or fiber optic audio...yet.
My Mac does everything I need it to do. Well, I might swap out the 2x SuperDrive for the new 8x as soon as Apple comes up with the driver for it.
When my G4 no longer works well, I'll happily buy another Apple.
Dave the Wizard,
When you talk about "vector" units and such, please explain to us non-tech Mac users, does that relate directly to AltiVec (vector)? Is the "velocity engine" a vector accelarator? Kindly enlighten us non-tech nerds.
Telomar, there was no "assuming" anything about AltiVec except the news stories over the last 3 years about the battle by Apple to get IBM to design AltiVec capability into the next (G5) chip to replace the aging G4. My memory about what I read and heard is that IBM resisted AltiVec but that Steve Jobs and crew insisted on its importance. Since I don't really understand the techie stuff, I came to believe that IBM partially capitulated by providing a type of AltiVec technology that would run the "velocity engine", enouch to placate Apple.
Can anyone expand on this?
Without assuming anything about the necessity of AltiVec, if IBM is hell bent on refining speed and efficiency on chips it makes for its own servers and for other users (Apple is only one of many, many customers), how likely is it that IBM will produce heat and current efficient chips that do not incorporate AltiVec?
This line of thought comes from the newly announced supercomputer unit (reportedly about the size of a dishwasher) Blue Gene/L (which IBM intends to be but one of 128 units in the 350Tflop supercomputer it is planning to install for Lawrence Livermore Labs in 2005). The whole supercomputer comprised of these 128 units of Blue Gene/L is reportedly 10x faster than #1 NEC Earth Simulator 35Tflops, but occupies about 1/8th the space. It has also been designed to be heat and current efficient.
Bottom line is that IBM is going to follow the tricky path of technological advancement towards greater efficiency and power. Achieving that, might AltiVec technology become irrelevant to IBM's goals despite Apple's needs?
When I compared Apple's sales to computer sales giant Dell, I mean to imply that Apple doesn't wield a very big stick with super giant IBM in the industrial scheme of things computer. And, it won't until it grabs a bigger market share and more than doubles its sales of computers (ignore the adorable iPod).
Having started out with a Mac LC in the late 1980's, I am ecstatic over the snappy performance of Panther on my G4 dual 1GHz for those things I do on a computer to earn a living as an attorney. A G4 is just plain awesome.
Panther is so snappy, I have to be careful what I touch or drag with my cursor - files disappear into some desktop folder accidentially because my finger twitches, so I have to use the Finder to find it. On a MacLC, I never dreamed that could ever be a problem.
Now, if I was a professional video editor (I do use FCPro3 and iDVD a bit) or into designing media with Adobe products, especially Photoshop, and my financial health depended on number crunching speed, then I'd worry about whether I should get a G5 dual 2GHz now, or maybe wait until February to see what the 2.5 GHz machines are like probably for the same $3,000 top level entry fee. But my living depends on word documents and spreadsheets and I only get "intellectually" excited over the prospective availability of 3 GHz plus machines.
Thank you, Apple, my G4 provides me with all the speed I need.
I love my iSight, my several color printers, but most of all I love the convenience of my two DYMO LabelWriter printers.
DYMO 330 prints beautiful Shipping Labels and the
DYMO 330 Turbo prints file folder labels at "turbo" speed.
I got 2 LabelWriters because I'm too lazy to change the labels on just one machine, unless it's to print something else - like VHS video spines, audio cassettes, or labels for ID tags.
Now I'm looking to spend money on a large Cinema Display, an SLR digital camera that has interchangable lenses, a better DV camcorder, or an upgrade in software.
When am I likely to feel the NEED to move to G5 (or, by then G6)?
Probably when the software I love or want is only compatible on a 64-bit Mac.
Compatibility with better software is what persuaded me to leave 68040 Motorola chips for IBM PPC 604, and eventually to G3 and G4. My G4 already has an added USB 2.0 PCI board, Bluetooth for my cellphone, and is tied to a wireless AirPort Extreme network that works well with a TCP/IP router to cable access, I just don't understand how or why. I don't need FireWire 800 or fiber optic audio...yet.
My Mac does everything I need it to do. Well, I might swap out the 2x SuperDrive for the new 8x as soon as Apple comes up with the driver for it.
When my G4 no longer works well, I'll happily buy another Apple.
Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
The term "vector unit" in relation to processors used by Apple goes by different names:
Apple uses "Velocity Engine"
Motorola uses "AltiVec"
IBM uses "VMX"
These are all the same thing (just different names)
As for vector units, they aren't "accelerators" per se because they don't work in cooperation with the main processor but actually offload all the vector computations to themselves (hence they are "units")
The term "vector unit" in relation to processors used by Apple goes by different names:
Apple uses "Velocity Engine"
Motorola uses "AltiVec"
IBM uses "VMX"
These are all the same thing (just different names)
As for vector units, they aren't "accelerators" per se because they don't work in cooperation with the main processor but actually offload all the vector computations to themselves (hence they are "units")
AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
Okay, then how and why is utilization of vector technology advantageous to a Mac? Motorola and IBM make chips incorporating "vector technology" (VMX or AltiVec) and Apple designs an operating system that utilizes "vector technology" calling it a "Velocity Engine", and Adobe writes some (or all?) of its applications to utilize the Velocity Engine in Mac OS X running on compliant Motorola or IBM chips.
So how or why is this helpful to history students, video editors, media designers, doctors and lawyers who buy a Mac?
And what if IBM says to Apple,
"We know you love the G5 PPC 970 chip, but now we have this really great new PPC 880 chip running at 5GHz clock-speed, but...uh, IBM engineers have not made VMX part of the design? Are you interested, Apple?"
What does Apple have to think about when considering such chips for its PowerBooks or towers? Does VMX matter to Apple (and us), if so, why?
Okay, then how and why is utilization of vector technology advantageous to a Mac? Motorola and IBM make chips incorporating "vector technology" (VMX or AltiVec) and Apple designs an operating system that utilizes "vector technology" calling it a "Velocity Engine", and Adobe writes some (or all?) of its applications to utilize the Velocity Engine in Mac OS X running on compliant Motorola or IBM chips.
So how or why is this helpful to history students, video editors, media designers, doctors and lawyers who buy a Mac?
And what if IBM says to Apple,
"We know you love the G5 PPC 970 chip, but now we have this really great new PPC 880 chip running at 5GHz clock-speed, but...uh, IBM engineers have not made VMX part of the design? Are you interested, Apple?"
What does Apple have to think about when considering such chips for its PowerBooks or towers? Does VMX matter to Apple (and us), if so, why?
If this rumor turns out to be true, I hope that this mobile cpu is based on the 980 instead of the 970. The 980 appears to be an overall superior design and should be much more efficient than a 970 at the same clock speed. Meanwhile, the 970 is only a little bit more efficient than the G4 chips using the gcc compiler.
A mobile G6 makes more sense to me than a mobile G5. It appears the the optimized desktop G5 will make it into Powerbooks next year some time. Therefore a mobile processor released in 2005 would more likely be a G6 derivative. I expect the mobile version of the G6 would be only modestly more efficient than a G5. This would be a rapid advancement to be sure, but would be entirely reasonable if IBM plans to produce replacements for all Motorola chips.
Motorola could only save face by quickly producing an improved G4 for iBooks and eMacs. A modified version of their planned succesor to the G4 might suit this purpose and allow Motorola to gain back a little bit of respect. Knowing Motorola this isn't very likely since they probably figure that we will be stuck with a G4 until 2006 regardless of what they do to improve it.
A mobile G6 makes more sense to me than a mobile G5. It appears the the optimized desktop G5 will make it into Powerbooks next year some time. Therefore a mobile processor released in 2005 would more likely be a G6 derivative. I expect the mobile version of the G6 would be only modestly more efficient than a G5. This would be a rapid advancement to be sure, but would be entirely reasonable if IBM plans to produce replacements for all Motorola chips.
Motorola could only save face by quickly producing an improved G4 for iBooks and eMacs. A modified version of their planned succesor to the G4 might suit this purpose and allow Motorola to gain back a little bit of respect. Knowing Motorola this isn't very likely since they probably figure that we will be stuck with a G4 until 2006 regardless of what they do to improve it.
Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
The VMX unit was done hastily but if you look at the design of the PPC 970 the whole chip was made hastily. Nothing yet has been optimised properly and just fixing that will enable significant improvement in the heat output and efficiency of the chip. Furthermore you'll find the next iteration of the chip also has some more advanced power management features allowing further improvements. Many of the improvements made to the POWER5 so it runs cooler will be working their way across for the 90 nm PPC 970 (note this is not a 980).
The reason IBM has been less inclined to add VMX to their server chips is it isn't as useful to those markets. There's no point to add the cost when for those markets there is very little benefit to it. IBM can just as easily produce efficient chips that include VMX however.
As for why is it helpful to those groups... With the exception of lawyers and history students, who could live on a 2GHz PPC, video, media and doctors all use programs with code that can be heavily vectorised and thus gain substantial performance benefits.
There was never any massive battle to have VMX added to the PPC 970, IBM helped design it. VMX is Altivec and vice versa. It's the same technology by different names.
The VMX unit was done hastily but if you look at the design of the PPC 970 the whole chip was made hastily. Nothing yet has been optimised properly and just fixing that will enable significant improvement in the heat output and efficiency of the chip. Furthermore you'll find the next iteration of the chip also has some more advanced power management features allowing further improvements. Many of the improvements made to the POWER5 so it runs cooler will be working their way across for the 90 nm PPC 970 (note this is not a 980).
The reason IBM has been less inclined to add VMX to their server chips is it isn't as useful to those markets. There's no point to add the cost when for those markets there is very little benefit to it. IBM can just as easily produce efficient chips that include VMX however.
SIMD units allow you to get far more performance from less silicon space. IBM has already publicly stated they not only intend to keep VMX but improve its design slightly to better suit themselves. There is no chance they are going into a PPC design that might be lobbied at Apple at this stage and not include the VMX unit from the outset.
As for why is it helpful to those groups... With the exception of lawyers and history students, who could live on a 2GHz PPC, video, media and doctors all use programs with code that can be heavily vectorised and thus gain substantial performance benefits.
AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
Spreadsheets (Excel)?
Adobe Acrobat PDF files?
Adobe Photoshop?
Thanks for the explanation regarding IBM and VMX. Some rumors are about that seemed to indicate IBM was grudgingly placating Apple's request for chips that take advantage of their Velocity Engine. I'm pleased to hear that this is not the case.
Would you say that VMX is tied to the Mac OS emphasis on GUI orientation, or is that a myth?
Are we to assume that images benefit from "vector units" and the velocity engine, or is it more specifically mathematical calculations?
Spreadsheets (Excel)?
Adobe Acrobat PDF files?
Adobe Photoshop?
Thanks for the explanation regarding IBM and VMX. Some rumors are about that seemed to indicate IBM was grudgingly placating Apple's request for chips that take advantage of their Velocity Engine. I'm pleased to hear that this is not the case.
Would you say that VMX is tied to the Mac OS emphasis on GUI orientation, or is that a myth?
Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
Vector units are actually SIMD units.
Single Instruction, Multiple Data
As you can see, this is ideal when doing a lot of work with audio, graphics, video, etc where the tasks will be performing the same action on all the data.
For example, you can fit 4 pixels worth of RGBA data in an Altivec/VMX register. Then you can simply do a multiply/add/etc instruction on the data to modify all 4 pixels in one go. In conventional integer or FP math you'd have to do each pixel at a time, and also because each pixel is comprised of 4 elements, you would have to break them up into their relevant parts first, and then perform logic to account for rounding, etc.
I'm no expert, especially on Altivec/VMX, but this is a general and very basic comparison:
So: VMX
4 load instructions to load the data into the register
1 VMX instruction to modify (VMX does auto bounds checking IIRC)
4 instructions to store the result back
= 9 instructions
Normal:
16 load instructions
16 modification instructions
16 bounds checking instructions
16 instructions to store the result back
= 64 instructions
Vector units are actually SIMD units.
Single Instruction, Multiple Data
As you can see, this is ideal when doing a lot of work with audio, graphics, video, etc where the tasks will be performing the same action on all the data.
For example, you can fit 4 pixels worth of RGBA data in an Altivec/VMX register. Then you can simply do a multiply/add/etc instruction on the data to modify all 4 pixels in one go. In conventional integer or FP math you'd have to do each pixel at a time, and also because each pixel is comprised of 4 elements, you would have to break them up into their relevant parts first, and then perform logic to account for rounding, etc.
I'm no expert, especially on Altivec/VMX, but this is a general and very basic comparison:
So: VMX
4 load instructions to load the data into the register
1 VMX instruction to modify (VMX does auto bounds checking IIRC)
4 instructions to store the result back
= 9 instructions
Normal:
16 load instructions
16 modification instructions
16 bounds checking instructions
16 instructions to store the result back
= 64 instructions
AltiVec/VMX (SIMD Units) vs. pure clockspeed
OS X + Photoshop + G5 or G4 = faster processing of vector information by using SIMD units
Right?
So, clock-speed is a constant, which can be aided by utilizing SIMD Units.
Okay, so by using a software/hardware combination of Velocity Engine / AltiVec /VMX - the chip is only burdened with 9 instructions instead of 64, sort of a shortcut from "normal" chip operation IF the chip has a VMX/AltiVec design, and the software (both OS and Application) is designed to take advantage of special Vector instructions.
OS X + Photoshop + G5 or G4 = faster processing of vector information by using SIMD units
Right?So, clock-speed is a constant, which can be aided by utilizing SIMD Units.
Not really. My old dell latitude C800 was the first line of Dell's featuring the P4m. Mine ran at 1.6GHz, with 1Gb of PC133 RAM. Plus the graphics chips (Gforce 420go) and the 15" UXGA screen. Now... the thing had DUAL 8cell LiIon Batteries, and during Hurricane Lili I was able to play Diablo2 for about an hour once the power had gone out. On one battery, it probably would have run for 30-40 minutes. <shrug>
Dharvabinky
Re: extended battery life
an interesting concept but the cost at this time is prohibitave as is the size of the current tech. Storeing Hydrogen is an issue and I wouldn't like to carry petrol in my laptop or pressurised methane.
an interesting concept but the cost at this time is prohibitave as is the size of the current tech. Storeing Hydrogen is an issue and I wouldn't like to carry petrol in my laptop or pressurised methane.
Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
You may notice that once you really start using a nice digicam and a nice video camera for real, your computer will become VERY VERY slow. With the release of several apple apps today now optimized for 64 bit, for me the G4 is really end-of-life. Even try making a nice video based presentation in Powerpoint, and you will hit a wall with your G4. I just wish it wasn't so.
I cant justify a new replacement for my iMac/17/800/1gig now, but I need a laptop ASAP. I just cant stomache the thought of buying a G4 based laptop and missing out in 6 months when everything good is G5 optomized and I have a cripple.
Originally posted by MacRAND
Now I'm looking to spend money on a large Cinema Display, an SLR digital camera that has interchangable lenses, a better DV camcorder, or an upgrade in software.
When am I likely to feel the NEED to move to G5 (or, by then G6)?
Probably when the software I love or want is only compatible on a 64-bit Mac.
When my G4 no longer works well, I'll happily buy another Apple.
You may notice that once you really start using a nice digicam and a nice video camera for real, your computer will become VERY VERY slow. With the release of several apple apps today now optimized for 64 bit, for me the G4 is really end-of-life. Even try making a nice video based presentation in Powerpoint, and you will hit a wall with your G4. I just wish it wasn't so.
I cant justify a new replacement for my iMac/17/800/1gig now, but I need a laptop ASAP. I just cant stomache the thought of buying a G4 based laptop and missing out in 6 months when everything good is G5 optomized and I have a cripple.
Re: Re: AltiVec vs. pure clockspeed
iBook (unfortunately, SuperDrive NOT available) so you can have a decent laptop at a very reasonable price, speed equal to or better than your iMac, and much improved over my G3 iBook.
Save and get a new Dual G5 (1.8, 2.0, 2.5, whatever...) with SuperDrive (extra, grrrr!)
Speed for editing comes from:
1. raw clock speed
2. max RAM (2.5 GB plus)
3. dual chips (40% added)
4. Panther OS X (optimized for G5)
5. G5 64-bit CPU
6. Editing software (optimized for G5) FCP4.1, et alia
7. Add 1 Fast internal hard drive (if you add 2 internally, make identical HDs into RAID) - takes some jury rigging near Laser drive - talk to authorized indie
8. Fast firewire or scsi external hard drives
9. Endless supply of Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi or Dr Pepper
Seriously consider getting a NEW G4
iBook (unfortunately, SuperDrive NOT available) so you can have a decent laptop at a very reasonable price, speed equal to or better than your iMac, and much improved over my G3 iBook.Save and get a new Dual
G5 (1.8, 2.0, 2.5, whatever...) with SuperDrive (extra, grrrr!) Speed for editing comes from:
1. raw clock speed
2. max RAM (2.5 GB plus)
3. dual chips (40% added)
4. Panther OS X (optimized for G5)
5. G5 64-bit CPU
6. Editing software (optimized for G5) FCP4.1, et alia
7. Add 1 Fast internal hard drive (if you add 2 internally, make identical HDs into RAID) - takes some jury rigging near Laser drive - talk to authorized indie
8. Fast firewire or scsi external hard drives
9. Endless supply of Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi or Dr Pepper