More on IBM's 750VX?

[yamabushi]

Apple needs to migrate the entire line to 64bit chips in order to make certain enhancements to OSX. IBM chips will be cheaper than Motorola chips. There is no reason to keep the consumer line with 32bit support only. More importantly, the consumer line needs more powerful CPUs, faster hard drives, and more standard RAM.

 

[visor]

64bit

Originally posted by yamabushi
Apple needs to migrate the entire line to 64bit chips in order to make certain enhancements to OSX. IBM chips will be cheaper than Motorola chips. There is no reason to keep the consumer line with 32bit support only. More importantly, the consumer line needs more powerful CPUs, faster hard drives, and more standard RAM.

excellent point. Right now, only the very big companies can effort to make the 64bit addon to their high performance apps. Any little software company will probably skip the 64bit and g5 tuning until they get a major market for it.
Same whith miltithreaded applications. If a mojority of Systems don't have two processors, and it takes a lot of effort to make a nice multithreaded process setup, one rather skips it to see how the market develops.
But Apple always believed in tail end processors. Just think that any Student who bought an ibook up until very recently, still got a G3 processor. Now if he wanted to tune for altivec, he couldn't even do it on his almost new iBook.

Now if I can't use s.th. at home, I'm not going to carry it anywhere, thus this point is skipped in development for a long time.

People then think oh well the Mac is just to slow (because the software doesn't use altivec and scales only with frequency, which is still quite low) and say -
'Apples notebooks are beeing crushed by the centrinos'
From the view of a low end non altivec app, this is completely true. And - most programms one uses are of this kind.

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: 64bit

Originally posted by visor
Same with miltithreaded applications. If a majority of Systems don't have two processors, and it takes a lot of effort to make a nice multithreaded process setup, one rather skips it to see how the market develops.

Actually, I would think that most corporations are developing on high-end Macs with dual-processors, and thus are working in threaded applications quite often. Additionally many of the system services on Mac OS X implicitly rely on threading, thus all applications get some benefit to multiple CPUs, even without other applications running (which is nearly impossible on OS X).

But Apple always believed in tail end processors. Just think that any Student who bought an ibook up until very recently, still got a G3 processor. Now if he wanted to tune for altivec, he couldn't even do it on his almost new iBook.

This may be true, but you don't have to code directly to Altivec to get it's performance benefits. Apple has a number of libraries with highly optimized routines that will use Altivec when available, and highly optimized non-altivec routines otherwise. You can't beat the simplicity of code you don't have to write =).

People then think oh well the Mac is just to slow (because the software doesn't use altivec and scales only with frequency, which is still quite low) and say -
'Apples notebooks are beeing crushed by the centrinos'
From the view of a low end non altivec app, this is completely true. And - most programs one uses are of this kind.

I think it is also worth nothing that most programs don't require optimization of any kind. They simply need to have a lack of inefficiency. For example, I think think of anything that iChat does that requires any particular amount of optimization - it on average doesn't do much (unless you are a really busy chatter). All it needs is to not take up CPU when it doesn't need to do anything. Adobe Photoshop however routinely does operations that take up a lot of CPU time, thus almost all of it's operations need to be highly and well optimized. The (almost) canonical application that ignores this precept is M$ Word - gladly sipping down CPU time even when doing absolutely nothing. I mean, what could it possibly be doing when I haven't even started typing yet that takes up 7-10% of the CPU? That is the type of application that we don't need to be come routine.

 

[jouster]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Apple needs to migrate the entire line to 64bit chips in order to make certain enhancements to OSX. IBM chips will be cheaper than Motorola chips. There is no reason to keep the consumer line with 32bit support only. More importantly, the consumer line needs more powerful CPUs, faster hard drives, and more standard RAM.

I suppose you're right, but don't hold your breath. With an installed base of many millions (and don't forget that a lot of them haven't even made the change to X yet), it'll be a looooong time before the platform moves to all 64 bit procs.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
MERSI is a protocol for using multiple CPUs together. It defines how the two chips interact with shared resources.

The FPU on the 74xx G4 class CPUs is more advanced than the ones found in the 750xx G3 class CPUs. Assuming that the VX doesn't get this upgrade, it would make the 74xx CPUs better at floating point calculations. Given that the G5 has an even better FPU however, I would bet that should the VX arrive and be targeted at the same markets as the 74xx, that it would come with a G5-ish FPU.

Hmmm.... so adding Altivec, dual FPUs, and (presumably, if we plan to actually USE the other enhancements) a new bus of some sort. That doesn't sound like a 750 to me. That sounds like a completely new chip using a few 750 design elements. I highly doubt the 750vx rumors, but I've been wrong before.

 

[AhmedFaisal]

hmmm what about this mobile PowerPC thing recently

Remember guys, recently we heard this rumor about Apple working with IBM on a PowerPC that was strictly designed for mobile applications. What if that is going to be happening on the 750ies basis? I mean we all agree with the coming 90nm revision of the G5 that processor might go into the i/eMacs. What if Apple/IBM decided to go the Centrino way (where Intel did the only right thing, to go back to the P3, not repeat the mistakes of the P4 and design a CPU straight for mobile Applications) and build a true mobile PowerPC based on the G3 chassis? But its not 64bit you guys will say. Lets face, it so far 64bits main advantage is more memory can be allocated and the G5 is a REAL SMP Processor. Neither is interesting for Notebooks. Duals get too hot and memory above 1-2Gigs for a Notebook is WAY too expensive. They could call it G4 Mobile if they wanted to or whatever.
Cheers,

Ahmed

 

[Telomar]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Apple needs to migrate the entire line to 64bit chips in order to make certain enhancements to OSX.

That isn't true. They can easily make the enhancements then have installers install only to appropriate systems. Sun has done it for years with Solaris.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Hmmm.... so adding Altivec, dual FPUs, and (presumably, if we plan to actually USE the other enhancements) a new bus of some sort. That doesn't sound like a 750 to me. That sounds like a completely new chip using a few 750 design elements. I highly doubt the 750vx rumors, but I've been wrong before.

I don't think they'd make a 750 with dual FPUs, but there are other significant differences between the 750 & 970 FPUs that could be useful. That said, I've doubted in the 750VX rumors myself .

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: hmmm what about this mobile PowerPC thing recently

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Remember guys, recently we heard this rumor about Apple working with IBM on a PowerPC that was strictly designed for mobile applications. What if that is going to be happening on the 750ies basis? I mean we all agree with the coming 90nm revision of the G5 that processor might go into the i/eMacs. What if Apple/IBM decided to go the Centrino way (where Intel did the only right thing, to go back to the P3, not repeat the mistakes of the P4 and design a CPU straight for mobile Applications) and build a true mobile PowerPC based on the G3 chassis? But its not 64bit you guys will say. Lets face, it so far 64bits main advantage is more memory can be allocated and the G5 is a REAL SMP Processor. Neither is interesting for Notebooks. Duals get too hot and memory above 1-2Gigs for a Notebook is WAY too expensive. They could call it G4 Mobile if they wanted to or whatever.

That rumor also put this CPU as coming no sooner than 2005, the VX has been rumored forever.

As for the typical (and cyclically stated) "you don't need that", in a year or two everyone will want it in a Notebook, or be able to get it for the price you get less for today. The first thing you learn watching the computer industry is that next year you'll see all the things that you thought were just too cutting edge this year...

 

[panphage]

Re: hmmm what about this mobile PowerPC thing recently

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Remember guys, recently we heard this rumor about Apple working with IBM on a PowerPC that was strictly designed for mobile applications. What if that is going to be happening on the 750ies basis? I mean we all agree with the coming 90nm revision of the G5 that processor might go into the i/eMacs. What if Apple/IBM decided to go the Centrino way (where Intel did the only right thing, to go back to the P3, not repeat the mistakes of the P4 and design a CPU straight for mobile Applications) and build a true mobile PowerPC based on the G3 chassis? But its not 64bit you guys will say. Lets face, it so far 64bits main advantage is more memory can be allocated and the G5 is a REAL SMP Processor. Neither is interesting for Notebooks. Duals get too hot and memory above 1-2Gigs for a Notebook is WAY too expensive. They could call it G4 Mobile if they wanted to or whatever.
Cheers,

Ahmed

This rumor of a "Mobile" PowerPC chip almost has to be bunk. Remember, IBM and Motorola designed and marketed powerpc chips mainly for embedded applications. If the main application of the processor is embedded, you're already pretty well set for mobile/laptop. Now, the 970 may be a different beast, but it's still meant to be used by IBM in high density blade servers, so it shouldn't be THAT hard to engineer it for a laptop. Unless that entire blade story was a snow job to keep people from knowing what apple was up to.

 

[wrc fan]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
MERSI is a protocol for using multiple CPUs together. It defines how the two chips interact with shared resources.

I thought that I had heard that the 750FX and 760GX had SMP support, I would asume that it then supports MERSI?

 

[singletrack]

Originally posted by AndrewMT
The 12" powerbooks get pretty hot where your left palm sits. And the sony vaio PCG-TR2A is not that bad looking.

That's the hard disk, not the processor. iBooks have always been like that.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by oaklandbum
I thought that I had heard that the 750FX and 760GX had SMP support, I would asume that it then supports MERSI?

The 750xx have always supported some form of SMP (MESI I think), but it's not really that great for it. I think Be had a dual 750 box, but that could have been a dual 604e.

 

[stingerman]

Originally posted by AndrewMT
Apple is getting crushed in the laptop market right now. What the powerbook/ibook line needs is a low-power, low-heat chip comparable to Intel's Centrino. I'll never go back to the powebook market until Apple releases one that does not burn your lap or hand and does not require annoying fans to keep it cool. The G4 laptops are a joke compared to the pc notebook market right now.

Don't be a troll. Apple is doing very well in the laptop market and has some of the best notebooks around, starting with the 799 iBook G3 (yes that's right, Apple still sells the iBooks G3 and its only 799!)

Apple's overall Laptop marketshare jumped from 5% to 7% during a period when total laptop shipments were up significantly (meaning each % point gain is worth a whole lot) with Apple almost doubling their units shipped. Apple captured the #1 position in the Educational, Creative, Pro, Science and Unix markets.

In Japan (the worlds second largest computer market), Apple is the #2 notebook seller and its growing sales.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by singletrack
That's the hard disk, not the processor. iBooks have always been like that.

yes,... and the 2nd rev of the 12" is cooler than the first rev. The originals were too hot IMHO. The new ones aren't nearly as bad.

ffakr.

 

[wrc fan]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
The 750xx have always supported some form of SMP (MESI I think), but it's not really that great for it. I think Be had a dual 750 box, but that could have been a dual 604e.

The BeBox was 180MHz 604e proccessors, I believe. The original G3s could not do SMP by all the reports I've heard.

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by oaklandbum
The BeBox was 180MHz 604e proccessors, I believe. The original G3s could not do SMP by all the reports I've heard.

No, BeBoxes had dual 603e processors. The design philosophy of Be was to use multiple, cheap processors.
Before the Blue and Red BeBoxes Be used to demo the BeOS on dual processor PowerMac 85/8600s with dual 604es (very impressive at the time).

original reports intimated that the G3 couldn't do SMP but this was not true. They could not support the full MERSI spec (they were MER or MERS if I recall) so they weren't as good at SMP as a chip like the 604e was. You can, however, buy dual processor 750 daughter cards for number crunching. No one really bothered to make SMP computers from them because the efficency didn't make it worth while (and they were better processors than their P2 competition.. at least for a while, so single proc machines were fine)

**edit** sorry, I originally said 750s were as good at SMP as 604es when I should have said they WEREN'T. Big difference **edit**

 

[jadam]

my ibook 700 has always pissed me off. From the 2 logic boards that I have had to get replaced to the 3 poweradapters this thing has eaten...

the laptop itself is great though except for those fatal flaws that prevent me from using it from months on end because it wont turn on heh.

 

[stingerman]

Apple can always go down the path of using a higher pipelined 440 core which doesn't include a FP unit and adding the Altivec and FP2 units (same dual 64 bit FPU in 970). Since this architecture allows for 36-bit address space that means 64GB maximum RAM. This kind of hybrid 32 bit/64 bit system, will allow Apple to produce smaller and lower powered 90NM mobile G5 chip while giving them a similar processor to the G5. Apple would do well to give it a new name altogether to identify it as their notebook chip.

Other enhancements would include adding other components to the actual core such as the memory controller, UART, USB2, Firewire, Ethernet, Bluetooth and maybe even a basic Radeon type GPU. IBM's design technology allows Apple designers to assign lower voltages to the other components on the same chip as well as to dynamically adjust both the voltage and the frequency.

It would allow for a super low power usage, significantly smaller form factor, while still providing high frequency operation during peak demand. I really don't see how Apple cannot go down this route since IBM allows for this kind of technology today and this past year has opened up their design facilities to third parties like Apple.

 

[rt_brained]

Originally posted by AndrewMT
Apple is getting crushed in the laptop market right now. What the powerbook/ibook line needs is a low-power, low-heat chip comparable to Intel's Centrino. I'll never go back to the powebook market until Apple releases one that does not burn your lap or hand and does not require annoying fans to keep it cool. The G4 laptops are a joke compared to the pc notebook market right now.

Right. Everyone believes that you have all the time and money required to jump back and forth between PCs and Macs, learning and re-learning shortcut keys, updating and re-updating hardware... All in the name of speed and/or comfort.

Why do you even waste your time here?