A Mobile 64-bit PowerPC?

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: extended battery life

Originally posted by manitoubalck
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.

Not to mention the fact that they'd probably never let you take one on a plane. Your fuel-cell battery could easily double as a mini bomb...

Ah, the age of paranoia that we live in...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Spock
A 64bit G4 would be nice for Powermac upgrade companys like Sonnet etc..

That's not a possible upgrade path. I even have some doubts about the possibility of a G5 upgrade card for G4 towers. They might manage that one, but there's no such thing as a 64bit G4 and never will be.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: AltiVec/VMX (SIMD Units) vs. pure clockspeed

Hi MacRAND,

I thought I'd throw my hat into the frey, just to shed some light on this subject, as I understand it.

Originally posted by MacRAND
... 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....

Can anyone expand on this?

and

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.

I think that you've mixed up some stories. This goes back to the development of the G4, not the G5. When the development of the G4 started, Apple wanted to incorporate an SIMD unit. IBM didn't like this idea, and so they continued development of the SIMD-less G3 line, while Moto did like this idea, and so became the original designer of AltiVec and the only supplier of the G4. So far as I've read, however, there was never any conflict with IBM about putting an AltiVec equivalent SIMD unit on the PPC970.

This line of thought comes from the newly announced supercomputer unit (reportedly about the size of a dishwasher) Blue Gene/L ...

For that SC they're using a completely different type of processor. Though it's in the PPC family, as I understand it, each processor is notably less powerful than their current G3 line. So, they're not really developing a new processor that's so efficient, but rather putting an already existing processor into a new architecture to get more power. (Again, as I understand it...)

Having started out with a Mac LC in the late 1980's

Just to be nit-pick...
I don't think that you were working on an LC in the late 80s. Why don't I think so? The LC wasn't introduced until October of 1990.

...an SLR digital camera ...

Personally, I'd look at the new Canon Digital Rebel. I've been using the Rebel line for years, and they are excellent cameras. The Digital Rebel is the first digital camera that I've even considered getting (and probably will when I get enough money).

Would you say that VMX is tied to the Mac OS emphasis on GUI orientation, or is that a myth?

No, not a myth. Apple makes good use of AltiVec/VMX in the GUI of OS X. Take away AltiVec/VMX and you'd notice a considerable decrease in snappiness...

Okay, so by using a software/hardware combination of Velocity Engine / AltiVec /VMX

Just to clarify something here, Velocity Engine is simply what Apple calls AltiVec/VMX. All that's needed in order to access and gain the advantages of AltiVec is for there to be appropriate hooks in the compiler that you're using. So, OS X could, in principle, ignore AltiVec altogether, and other applications could still use it. (I believe that this is essentially how things were under OS 9 to OS X 10.0).

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.

Yup. That's right, though, as I mentioned above, OS X is incidental in that equation. Properly, it would be:

Photoshop + G4 or G5 = faster processing of vector information = faster image manipulation

Here's a question that no one else has offered any kind of answer to:

Originally posted by MacRAND
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?

The answer has to do with how the silicon wafers are produced. They are essentially slices of a bar of silicon that is drawn out in a nearly molten state. They need to make sure that the integral stresses in the bar are uniform in order to make sure that the silicon is consistent throughout the bar. If they were to make a square (for example) bar, the corners would have a lot of stress build up, and different parts of the resulting wafer would give you chips that behave differently. So, they use the uniformly consistent shape: ROUND!

 

[jeff.macaddict]

Re:

The G5 is a remarkable chip. It can heat the room faster than any of its' precedors! How could they put a chip that hot into an aluminum case without the case melting and becoming fused to your working surface. Have you ever burned one of those plastic dixie cups. Just imagine melting one of those Aluminum G5 notebooks. Besides-Apple should be more concerned with power management and working on getting better batteries. Or bigger batteries-I'd opt for a removable/hot swappable Superdrive that also worked as a second battery bay- kinda like the PowerBook G3. (Two batteries capable of up to 8-9 hours work time.)

 

[MacRAND]

Originally posted by jeff.macaddict
Aluminum G5 notebooks... Apple should be more concerned with power management and working on getting better batteries... I'd opt for a removable/hot swappable Superdrive that also worked as a second battery bay- kinda like the PowerBook G3. (Two batteries capable of up to 8-9 hours work time.)

Apple, Steve Jobs, are you listening
removable/hot swappable SuperDrive that also works as a 2nd battery bay
excellent idea!

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re:

Originally posted by jeff.macaddict
The G5 is a remarkable chip. It can heat the room faster than any of its' precedors! ...

Uh... where are you getting your information?

From everything that I've read, the G5 is not much hotter than a G4. The heat of the processor is not a major impendiment to putting it into the PowerBook. As I understand it, there are other system elements, including, but not limited to, the system controller, that do run much hotter than the equivalent G4 elements, and it is these that are the the current stumbling block for the PowerBook G5.

Now, I'm happy acknowledge when I'm wrong. So, if you have information to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

 

[jeff.macaddict]

Re: where I get my information

Quote: Snowy_River said:



Uh... where are you getting your information?

From everything that I've read, the G5 is not much hotter than a G4. The heat of the processor is not a major impendiment to putting it into the PowerBook. As I understand it, there are other system elements, including, but not limited to, the system controller, that do run much hotter than the equivalent G4 elements, and it is these that are the the current stumbling block for the PowerBook G5.

Yes, you are correct, but no you aren't. The G5, is an extremely hot running chip, as well as the rest of the machine. The reason it may seem like it is cool, and cooler than the G4 is because there are eight (8) fans inside trying to keep the blazing PC-butt-kicking monster inside the beautiful G5 case cool. I don't think that there is a way to incorporate a cooling system extravegant enough to cool the G5.

 

[yamabushi]

How many times are we going to see this silly fan topic pop up? Will it never go away?

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Re: where I get my information

Originally posted by jeff.macaddict

Yes, you are correct, but no you aren't. The G5, is an extremely hot running chip, as well as the rest of the machine. The reason it may seem like it is cool, and cooler than the G4 is because there are eight (8) fans inside trying to keep the blazing PC-butt-kicking monster inside the beautiful G5 case cool. I don't think that there is a way to incorporate a cooling system extravegant enough to cool the G5.

Again, I ask where you're getting your information from. Is it simply the number of fans?

Here are some numbers that I was able to lay my hands on at short notice. Some of these may be old but I didn't want to spend the entire morning looking for the most up to date information.

Processor Power Dissipation (i.e. heat output)

G4 1.4GHz 42 W
G5 1.8GHz 42 W

This information was gleaned from the archives at ArsTechnica. As I said, it may not be completely up to date, but it clearly shows that the G5 is not the heat monster you seem to think it is. The reason for the nine fans (not eight) is to allow them to use slow fans and still move enough air to keep the computer cool. In other words, it's a noise issue, not (so much) a heat issue.

But, just to reitterate, the G5 itself is not "an extremely hot chip". If you actually have information to the contrary, please post it.

 

[jouster]

I gotta call bs on this. What laptop with a p4 has a 30 minute battery?

Yeah really. I have a Dell P4. Its battery life is around 4.5 hrs.

 

[ionas]

but all there is need for

I would take this with a big grain of salt.

I am sure by 2005, Apple would be able to put the 90nm G5's into the powerbooks.

is a 64bit cpu that can execute ppc code and got an altivec unit, then apple can call it g5.

(there are many variations of the g4 that differ a lot in some cases and produce different results in some cases)

 

[Capt Underpants]

Me too.

Apple should set up a site for taking pre-orders for PB G5, 15'' and 17'' and advertise this to some selected places only.

Just to see what the demand really is.

Why, why, why? If Apple were to do that, it would crush all Powerbook G4 sales. I bet Powermac G4 sales fell after the Powermac G5 was unveiled. Same would happen with the Powerbook.

 

[jouster]

If true this is the final nail in the Motorola coffin.
Rocketman

Well, from the point of view of selling *some* of the processors required by a company that has ~2% marketshare, as opposed to selling phones.

Which Motorola is quite good at.......

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/01/19/daily28.html

 

[MarkCollette]

Let me get the straight. We've seen rumors of:
- 2 GHz G3s
- G3s with VMX
- PPC 4xx
- PPC 3xx
- PPC 970fx
- PPC 980

And yet, Apple has yet to release anything but some newer xServes, which I don't even know if they've shipped yet...

Either something really great is coming down the pipeline, or someone at Apple dropped the ball, tripped over it, and fell off a cliff, landing on cactus.

 

[Opteron]

According to this report, the upcoming mobile PowerPC will be part of a 300 series of processors from IBM. This new mobile processor is not due to debut until 2005.

This is too long a wait, AMD have 2 mobile 64-bit processors on the market at the moment, and are using a very similar process to produce the chips. What's more is that AMD's chips are @ 130nm, not 90nm where the G5 currently is, What seems to be the big issue?

 

[wizard]

I hate to burst anybodies bubble here but there where rumors floating around about this device at least a year and a half ago. To maintain the same position it now has in the market Apple has no choice but to go with a more power frugal system for 64 bit portables. I just don't see a lot of happy customers if Apple where to throw the 970FX into a laptop and leave their customers with 30 min of operating time on a battery. So it is pretty much a given if Apple wants to play in the 64 bit portable segment, then it needs to reduce the power usage of the 970FX series in a dramatic manner.

I would suspect though that the processor would be due out earlier, with portable devices based on it due for delivery in 2005.

According to an anonymous report...

In light of the ongoing difficulties in incorporating desktop-class Processors (such as the PowerPC 970) into the PowerBook, Apple and IBM have laid the foundation for an architectural revamp of the PowerPC to produce an ultra low power 64-bit mobile processor.

According to this report, the upcoming mobile PowerPC will be part of a 300 series of processors from IBM. This new mobile processor is not due to debut until 2005.

 

[wizard]

The big issue is beig able to market a machine that fits into the PowerBooks niche in the market place. One defining feature of Apple portables over the last few years is the ability to run for a long time on Battery. Produce a portable that can't run for long on a battery and you will see Apples customer base run to something differrent.

This is too long a wait, AMD have 2 mobile 64-bit processors on the market at the moment, and are using a very similar process to produce the chips. What's more is that AMD's chips are @ 130nm, not 90nm where the G5 currently is, What seems to be the big issue?

 

[daveL]

What??

I hate to burst anybodies bubble here but there where rumors floating around about this device at least a year and a half ago. To maintain the same position it now has in the market Apple has no choice but to go with a more power frugal system for 64 bit portables. I just don't see a lot of happy customers if Apple where to throw the 970FX into a laptop and leave their customers with 30 min of operating time on a battery. So it is pretty much a given if Apple wants to play in the 64 bit portable segment, then it needs to reduce the power usage of the 970FX series in a dramatic manner.

I would suspect though that the processor would be due out earlier, with portable devices based on it due for delivery in 2005.

And exactly where do you get the data that allows you state that a 970FX-based PB would only get 30 minutes of battery life? There's absolutely nothing, that I'm aware of, that would support your claim. The lower clocked 970FX (1.6-1.8 GHz) have power consumption numbers in the same ball park as current G4 PBs. In addition, the 970FX has PowerTune, which the current G4 processors don't have. In fact, it's very possible that the processor being referenced by this rumor is, in fact, the 970FX (remember the time frame of the original rumor). In short, I consider your assertions to be misleading, at best, and obviously uninformed.

 

[MacRAND]

Who what where when why and how?

daveL, let's cut the wizard some slack,
since no one knows any real figures,
his presenting an estimate or example at this point is illustrative and nothing more than a guess, certainly not to be taken literally.
I didn't.

And exactly where do you get the data that allows you state that a 970FX-based PB would only get 30 minutes of battery life? There's absolutely nothing, that I'm aware of, that would support your claim.
...
In short, I consider your assertions to be misleading, at best, and obviously uninformed.

I think most of us felt the wizard's "30 minutes" was a hypothetical and not to be taken as factual.

wizard makes good points.
and, so do you, daveL.​

This is more than a Rumors forum, it's a place to share fears and worries.
We are all worried about Apple avoiding another "lap burning Titanium" fiasco with "chipping paint" problems. The Aluminum PBs are such an improvement, and I would hope a G5 PB would continue to improve Apple's premium laptop, again setting a high mark of achievement within the whole computer industry, just like the PowerMac G5 has.

POINT: How are Apple's Engineers going to get the guts of a G5 Xserve into a 1-inch PowerBook case and at the same time maintain the chip clock-speed with manageable power consumption, and without too much of a heat problem that might require additional power consumption for more fans or a liquid cooling system.

When Apple's Engineers are finally successful in pulling off such wizardry, let us honor them as:

Apple's Wizards​

I think the wizard is right, Apple could probably give us a PB right now, if we would be willing to accept a short (i.e. 30-minute) battery life
because it has to supply power to run the CPU, LCD screen, DVD Laser SuperDrive, 7200rpm 60GB HardDrive, fans or more sophisticated liquid circulation /cooling system (compressor?), FireWire and USB 2.0 peripherals, BlueTooth, and AirPort E card.

 

[wizard]

Well while it is always good to get a little support I have to stick by my guns, the figures being bandied abotu for power disapation of the 970FX, in relation to a PowerBook, are for slowlly clocked 970's and frankly are not outstanding relative to the G4. Add in the NorthBridge and the power equation becomes interesting to say the least. It is the total of all the componnents on the motherboard that will make or brake a G5 laptop.

People have to ask themsleve do I want a 64 bit laptop with about the same pefromance as a G4 with half the lifetime on battery or less. In essence this is the issue, how much of the good stuff associated with the current Powerbooks are you willing to give up for the ability to claim ownership of a 64 bit portable.

Then the issue of reasonable clock rate comes to mind. Bump a 970FX up to 1.8 to 2 GHz and its power usage goes up quite a bit. And one does have to take into account maximum power usage, which is still high with respect to the FX.

All I'm saying is that as things look at the moment a 970fx in a laptop will not offer huge advantages over a G$ based laptop. They very likely would be running at the same clock rate, and laptop design considerations for the 970, would mean that some of its advatages such as a 2:1 ebus/processor ratio will be gone.

Now there are alot of things that Apple could do to address the issues related to the 970FX in a laptop if they had the brass to do so. One possibility would be to intgrate the entire laptop into a "NorthBridge" chip. In effect the laptop would have two chips, memory and some support logic. A high level of integration in the Northbridge should reduce heat and costs. I sometimes wonder if this is what is being referenced by the slip up recently with that referrence to a SOC. While not a total SOC this would be one way to take advantage of IBM's 90nm technology. Of course a total SOC implementation would be nice also.

The point is with the little bit of information available now it does not look good for a 970fx in a PowerBook. That is a machine that keeps the same form factor and same battery lifespan. It is interesitng that some of the guys over on Ars have dug up some interesting information on the 970fx and its power usage. While it does appear that the 1.4 GHz fx may do better than first realized I'm not yet convinced that it is a hands down winner over the G4.

I would also suspect that Apple is currently rinning both of these proecssors through their paces in prototype PowerBooks to get a handle on real world performance. The problem is to get the performace that many expect out of the 970 high clock rates are required, at which point power usage goes through the roof, or your pants if it is sitting on your lap. 50 watts is a lot of power to push through the powerbooks housing.

Thanks
Dave

daveL, let's cut the wizard some slack,
since no one knows any real figures,
his presenting an estimate or example at this point is illustrative and nothing more than a guess, certainly not to be taken literally.
I didn't.
I think most of us felt the wizard's "30 minutes" was a hypothetical and not to be taken as factual.

wizard makes good points.
and, so do you, daveL.​

This is more than a Rumors forum, it's a place to share fears and worries.
We are all worried about Apple avoiding another "lap burning Titanium" fiasco with "chipping paint" problems. The Aluminum PBs are such an improvement, and I would hope a G5 PB would continue to improve Apple's premium laptop, again setting a high mark of achievement within the whole computer industry, just like the PowerMac G5 has.

POINT: How are Apple's Engineers going to get the guts of a G5 Xserve into a 1-inch PowerBook case and at the same time maintain the chip clock-speed with manageable power consumption, and without too much of a heat problem that might require additional power consumption for more fans or a liquid cooling system.

When Apple's Engineers are finally successful in pulling off such wizardry, let us honor them as:

Apple's Wizards​

I think the wizard is right, Apple could probably give us a PB right now, if we would be willing to accept a short (i.e. 30-minute) battery life
because it has to supply power to run the CPU, LCD screen, DVD Laser SuperDrive, 7200rpm 60GB HardDrive, fans or more sophisticated liquid circulation /cooling system (compressor?), FireWire and USB 2.0 peripherals, BlueTooth, and AirPort E card.

 

[MacRAND]

What current practicable 64-bit capability does the G5 970FX chip really have?

Well while it is always good to get a little support I have to stick by my guns, the figures being bandied about for power disapation of the 970FX, in relation to a PowerBook, are for slowlly clocked 970's and frankly are not outstanding relative to the G4. Add in the NorthBridge and the power equation becomes interesting to say the least. It is the total of all the componnents on the motherboard that will make or brake a G5 laptop.

People have to ask themsleve do I want a 64 bit laptop with about the same pefromance as a G4 with half the lifetime on battery or less. In essence this is the issue, how much of the good stuff associated with the current Powerbooks are you willing to give up for the ability to claim ownership of a 64 bit portable.

Then the issue of reasonable clock rate comes to mind. Bump a 970FX up to 1.8 to 2 GHz and its power usage goes up quite a bit. And one does have to take into account maximum power usage, which is still high with respect to the FX.

All I'm saying is that as things look at the moment a 970fx in a laptop will not offer huge advantages over a G4 based laptop. They very likely would be running at the same clock rate, and laptop design considerations for the 970, would mean that some of its advatages such as a 2:1 ebus/processor ratio will be gone.
Thanks • Dave

I agree, and that apparently is why Apple is reluctant to release a mediocre PowerBook that cannot distinguish itself well from a G4 running at 1.33 or even 1.4 GHz

Snowy_River may know if you do not, what is the standard clock-speed of the 970FX that it has to get bumped to 1.8GHz?

Everybody keeps talking about 64-bit capability of the 970FX G5, yet it is my understanding that Apple has yet to tap into 64-bit capability for anything. Right? If wrong, then what?

My preference is that Apple do the PowerBook RIGHT for G5, or wait until it can, Steve Jobs' prediction or promised release date be damned. No do overs, no false starts. Macs need to work perfectly, right out of the box, the very first time. No trial runs.

Anybody want to be an early adopter of an experimental prototype for $3,000 plus?

 

[Hattig]

I really can't vouch for the accuracy of AppleInsider's sources, they do state that a 130 nm 970 @ 2.5 GHz consumes 97 W. FAR too much.

And a 970FX has a thermal design power of 39W at 2GHz, and typical usage of 25W.

If IBM can lower power usage even more by dropping the speed to, e.g., 1.6GHz, then there shouldn't be too much problems with making a thin laptop incorporating it.

In the long run, making a dedicated mobile processor is a good thing though.

 

[Hattig]

how rude

So how or why is this helpful to history students, video editors, media designers, doctors and lawyers who buy a Mac?

Vector Instructions are extremely useful for media applications, such as video and image processing. They are useful for anything that performs the same instruction many times in repetition.

Anyway, the VMX unit is a small percentage of the die on the 970. I really don't see them removing it at any point, or that it would be a major source of heat issues or clockability issues.

 

[Hattig]

Anyway, who bumped this 4 month old thread?! I didn't notice until near the end.

 

[Opteron]

Anybody want to be an early adopter of an experimental prototype for $3,000 plus?

I'd be a prototyoe adopte if
1: I had the money
2: it came with 3 year unlimited warrenty.