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.
Apple, PPC 980, and Upcoming G5s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
About time we got some new rumors here
This is very interesting news. I hope Power PC 980 (if indeed it is called that) development goes well (don't we all?). I haven't yet decided exactly when I'll get a new computer, but this news may help me make my decision sooner!
This is very interesting news. I hope Power PC 980 (if indeed it is called that) development goes well (don't we all?). I haven't yet decided exactly when I'll get a new computer, but this news may help me make my decision sooner!
Originally posted by T.Rex
It is hardly nonsense; while the G5's put Apple back in the game, it was hardly the knockout punch that we were led to believe. Right now, if I were in need of the absolute fastest machine for a workstation, there would be an AMD chip inside - be it the Athlon64-fx or more likely, an Opteron.
And I don't care what anyone says, such a computer would be cheaper, too.
I just configured a Dual 2 GHz. Opteron w/2GB of memory over at the BOXX Technologies online store and an equivalent G5 at Apple's store and the Opteron was not cheaper, not by a long shot.
There may be cheaper places to get the Opteron but I didn't spend a lot of time looking.
Regards
[sarcasm] yah, amd runs word and a game faster than a g5 woot! lets celebrate that a winamd machine runs a microsoft application better. [/sarcasm]i thought that office x wasnt as fast as office for xp. mebbe one day, they'll try optimized tests.
Its very good to hear of cpu developement. so it looks like the g5 is running almost twice as fast as the g4. if this report is true it should a great year coming. you know steve aint going to sit on those g5s.
If a 1'' thick 15"Ti-book can contain one processor (and all the rest), why shouldn't there be enough space in a 1'' thick 17'' Powerbook for two processors? It would require a redesign, which could be too costly for Apple admittedly. Nobody knows precise numbers for the G5, but the 7447/57s are below 10W, and the two processors could be placed a little bit apart. Battery life will suffer, but one could always disable one proc while on battery. It's a markting and cost issue, not a technical one.
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Its very good to hear of cpu developement. so it looks like the g5 is running almost twice as fast as the g4. if this report is true it should a great year coming. you know steve aint going to sit on those g5s.
They'll be running to hot to sit on?
Will give you BBS*, right?
M.
* Baked Buns Syndrome
Originally posted by NNO-Stephen
they would have to have some sort of liquid cooling system though, which IBM already has in some Think Pads.
Ummm, no... IBM does not have a liquid cooling system in any of its ThinkPads or even in its proto-type ThinkPads shown at developer conferences. Even with the ATI T2 FireGL 128MB graphics in the newer R50p and T41p, there's been no need for such drastic cooling needs.
yeah, they COULD do it, but it would be too costly. hardware redesign for one revision, that and the fact that they would have to buy two processors for each machine thereby raising the cost of each portable for the consumer... they are hgih enough thanks.
and about IBM not having liquid cooling?
stuff it http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2001/20010808_cooling.shtml
A few things to consider.
The power thing is somewhat overblown. A G5 running at the same clock speed as the current G4 line wouldn't run so hot. Possibly the next process technology will get the faster models down somewhere reasonable (still probably cooler than the IA32 competition but they have a lot of practice at this).
I would not be suprised if the PPC980 is not as much faster as you'd expect from IBM's high-end designs. The lack of L3 cache is a serious limit to performance. Faster FSB or no, the basic cycle time of DRAM is the limiting factor. If you look at Apple's performance primer (or similar) on the G5, you will see that the latency of DRAM is higher for the G5 than the old G4s, i.e., to fetch 1 byte takes longer, even if continuously streaming is faster.
Given this limitation, scaling SPEC numbers with clock speed is good, though apps for which the on-chip cache is not big enough may suffer. I wonder if this latest design will include any hardware support for multithreading (e.g. as in Intel HyperThreading) which is one way to keep the processor busy while waiting for DRAM.
The power thing is somewhat overblown. A G5 running at the same clock speed as the current G4 line wouldn't run so hot. Possibly the next process technology will get the faster models down somewhere reasonable (still probably cooler than the IA32 competition but they have a lot of practice at this).
I would not be suprised if the PPC980 is not as much faster as you'd expect from IBM's high-end designs. The lack of L3 cache is a serious limit to performance. Faster FSB or no, the basic cycle time of DRAM is the limiting factor. If you look at Apple's performance primer (or similar) on the G5, you will see that the latency of DRAM is higher for the G5 than the old G4s, i.e., to fetch 1 byte takes longer, even if continuously streaming is faster.
Given this limitation, scaling SPEC numbers with clock speed is good, though apps for which the on-chip cache is not big enough may suffer. I wonder if this latest design will include any hardware support for multithreading (e.g. as in Intel HyperThreading) which is one way to keep the processor busy while waiting for DRAM.
Originally posted by T.Rex
And I don't care what anyone says, such a computer would be cheaper, too.
Virginia Tech actually did the research, and they went with the G5. For pricing comparisons and FP comparisons, see
this MacSlash article
Re: wet dreams
And a G6 PowerMac in the professional line
Alright, I gotta stop dissing people on the forum. Done it twice already in one thread. But it's not meant to hurt anybody's feelings, FYI. Just little jokes
Originally posted by isgoed
imagine the consumer line
And a G6 PowerMac in the professional line
Alright, I gotta stop dissing people on the forum. Done it twice already in one thread. But it's not meant to hurt anybody's feelings, FYI. Just little jokes
If this is true, I'm going to kiss Steve Jobs, and then I'm going to kiss the people at IBM, and then I'm going to give the people at Motorola a roundhouse kick to the groin.
Supralinear scaling with clock frequency is very good. Normally, if you increase the clock frequency the SPEC score doesn't increase by as much as the frequency does.
I need to build a dual Opteron system
There was an excellent article at:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/
In part 2 of the article, there was a great deal of discussion about some of the severe limitations in the memory configurations of the P4 and Athlon mobo's. Must read if you are building a PC at all.
In my case, I found that the Tyan dual opteron board can be found for around $500, and (2 ea) 244 Opteron (1.8 Ghz) for about $460 each. Then you need power supply, graphics card, case, drives, memory, etc. Pretty pricey for a build your own system, and I would be surprised if it can be built for much less than a 2Ghz Dual G5. Kind of an eye opener!
There was an excellent article at:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/
In part 2 of the article, there was a great deal of discussion about some of the severe limitations in the memory configurations of the P4 and Athlon mobo's. Must read if you are building a PC at all.
In my case, I found that the Tyan dual opteron board can be found for around $500, and (2 ea) 244 Opteron (1.8 Ghz) for about $460 each. Then you need power supply, graphics card, case, drives, memory, etc. Pretty pricey for a build your own system, and I would be surprised if it can be built for much less than a 2Ghz Dual G5. Kind of an eye opener!
Actually some ThinkPads do have a kind of liquid cooled system, a kind of radiator, and have since 1999 or 2000. It's called a thermal hinge.
Other laptop makers have implemented similar devices because lots of airflow just isn't desired or possible in the cramped quarters within a laptop.
This rumor claims that IBM will go from a 130nm 970 to a 90nm 970 to a 90nm 980 in about a year, which is absolutely, undeniably, a crock full of ****. They just can't make money throwing away processor designs every 6-8 months. Intel has been on their 130 nm P4 for just about 2 years, and they have a far far larger number and value of processor sales than IBM. It is very reasonable to assume that the winter G5 refresh will be using exactly the same 130nm PPC970's as are used now, just clocked higher. Even the summer revision might use them, although 3ghz seems pretty fast. When IBM finally does get a 90nm replacement out the door, there's no reason that it has to be related to the Power5. It could be, but it sure would be a lot more cost effective for IBM to slap more L2 on a 970 and call it good for another year, or more.
I hate to break it to everyone, but in the real world, processors do not undergo radical changes very quickly. It just costs to darn much.
TMay:
I hate to break it to everyone, but in the real world, processors do not undergo radical changes very quickly. It just costs to darn much.
TMay:
PC's and Macs use the same memory technology, if this thing they talk of is a real effect (I think its an error, but who knows) then its gona effect Macs too.
Expensive but absolutely kickin. Opterons are awesome processors, and that mobo you selected (the K8W) is the best of the best. I am endlessly impressed by AMD's design. If only IBM had implemented chip-to-chip interconnects and on-die memory controllers in the G5!
Dual processor 17" Pbook
Ok, one of you hardware (power and cooling) geniuses tell me this: if G5's in PowerBooks is too hot, is it outside the realm of possibility that a 17" Powerbook could go Dual G4? Like Dual 1.25's or 1.4's? Even if that isn't a G5, a dual processor notebook would be sweet and dual G4's wouldn't be all _that_ bad would it?
Just curious
Ok, one of you hardware (power and cooling) geniuses tell me this: if G5's in PowerBooks is too hot, is it outside the realm of possibility that a 17" Powerbook could go Dual G4? Like Dual 1.25's or 1.4's? Even if that isn't a G5, a dual processor notebook would be sweet and dual G4's wouldn't be all _that_ bad would it?
Just curious
Dual G4's are worse than single G5's.
And I'm sure the G5 was a transitional design that will not last long. G6 by summer? I'll believe it.
And I'm sure the G5 was a transitional design that will not last long. G6 by summer? I'll believe it.
They are basing it on the synthetic tests that exclude compiler optimizations. So all things being equal it is a slightly better than linear increase, which is awesome, and a rarity. Frequency is only one variable of the performance formula. Other areas such as the caches, the number of registers, the transistor switch time, the accuracy of the prediction circuitry, the relative distance between internal parts and of course power management all need to be factored in. A linear increase in speed means that all the other variables have improved as well at the same fast rate. That is just an engineering marvel. Go check Pentium benchmarks and see for yourself.
As far as spec marks that include the compiler optimizations, get ready for them in January when the new IBM GCC compatible optimizing compiler is released. (How's that for another rumor, though this one has been kind of confirmed by the Cinebench folks at Maxon.)
stingerman:
SPEC is very compiler dependent. Intel has been accused of writing compilers in order to get high SPEC scores.
Yeah, but getting super-linear scaling is still pretty unusual. (I think this rumor of full of poo.)
Transistor switch times means nothing without a clock speed to match. Transistors in a syncronous device (which all current processors are) all wait for the clock signal before they do anything, doesn't matter how soon they were waiting for the clock, they still have to wait.
Calm down, this is a RUMOR. One that appears very false, at that.