Why would it cripple the processor? Just put dual channel 400MHz DDR memory in the Power Mac. 800 MHz effective.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No 970 in Powerbook yet; AGP 8x and HyperTransport in PMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Dont trust them
No, we do NOT have any evidence to believe that it is cooler than the G4. Can we PLEASE put this myth to rest? It has been disproven so many times that I have lost count. Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean that it IS true.
The PPC 970 dissipates 19 watts at 1.2 Ghz as per IBM docs. The current 7455 (G4) dissipates about 14 watts at 1 Ghz as per Motorola docs. There is an earlier version of the 7455 (as in, over 12 months old) that dissipated around 21 watts at 1 Ghz, but we have no particular reason to believe that that chip is being used in the portables.
Check the facts yourself:
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/...2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf
http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCSALESFACT.pdf
As a word of advice, I would distrust sites that claim a 970 Powerbook IS going to be released simultaneously with 970 towers, not won't that say it isn't.
No, we do NOT have any evidence to believe that it is cooler than the G4. Can we PLEASE put this myth to rest? It has been disproven so many times that I have lost count. Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean that it IS true.
The PPC 970 dissipates 19 watts at 1.2 Ghz as per IBM docs. The current 7455 (G4) dissipates about 14 watts at 1 Ghz as per Motorola docs. There is an earlier version of the 7455 (as in, over 12 months old) that dissipated around 21 watts at 1 Ghz, but we have no particular reason to believe that that chip is being used in the portables.
Check the facts yourself:
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/...2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf
http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCSALESFACT.pdf
As a word of advice, I would distrust sites that claim a 970 Powerbook IS going to be released simultaneously with 970 towers, not won't that say it isn't.
Powerbooks?
I do believe there is factual information to support a possible PB capable 970. Heat shouldn't be significantly worse than existing G4 chips. It's indeed possible. After all, PC makers put super hot chips in their laptops all the time. It's not insane in the PC world for 40+ watt chips in a laptop. The below is a 2001 article from Tom's Hardware on the heat issue:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/index.html
For a look at heat output on pre-production 970's (NOT the same specs/watts reported in recent rumors) and the G4e (oct 2002), take a look at this ArsTechnica article:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
Where I _do_ agree with the skepticism is WHEN. I don't think we'll see the 970 PB until Jan. '04, and for good reason... the PowerMacs need to take the throne for speed. Simple.
I think it's safe to say that until June, we're all doing a great deal of speculation on (somewhat) outdated documents. Most docs in publication right now do not match that of current rumors. You can either choose to believe the rumors, or not, but so many sources have said that the 970 will come in above reports speeds (2.5 possible, not 1.8, regardless of watts), and user wattage reported in current docs, that I choose to believe them.
I do believe there is factual information to support a possible PB capable 970. Heat shouldn't be significantly worse than existing G4 chips. It's indeed possible. After all, PC makers put super hot chips in their laptops all the time. It's not insane in the PC world for 40+ watt chips in a laptop. The below is a 2001 article from Tom's Hardware on the heat issue:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/index.html
For a look at heat output on pre-production 970's (NOT the same specs/watts reported in recent rumors) and the G4e (oct 2002), take a look at this ArsTechnica article:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html
Where I _do_ agree with the skepticism is WHEN. I don't think we'll see the 970 PB until Jan. '04, and for good reason... the PowerMacs need to take the throne for speed. Simple.
I think it's safe to say that until June, we're all doing a great deal of speculation on (somewhat) outdated documents. Most docs in publication right now do not match that of current rumors. You can either choose to believe the rumors, or not, but so many sources have said that the 970 will come in above reports speeds (2.5 possible, not 1.8, regardless of watts), and user wattage reported in current docs, that I choose to believe them.
Re: No Hypertransport
Better check out this website :
http://www.hypertransport.org
I suspect that the dual unidirectional 32 buses from the 970 is Hypertransport. This would fit in well with IBM and AMD relationship. AMD was the originator of HyperTransport.
Note HyperTransport peak throughput is 12.8 GBs, the rumors are quoting 6.4 GBs, exactly half.
So it looks like its Hypertransport and some extra room to grow !
Better check out this website :
http://www.hypertransport.org
I suspect that the dual unidirectional 32 buses from the 970 is Hypertransport. This would fit in well with IBM and AMD relationship. AMD was the originator of HyperTransport.
Note HyperTransport peak throughput is 12.8 GBs, the rumors are quoting 6.4 GBs, exactly half.
So it looks like its Hypertransport and some extra room to grow !
Yeah but we're trying to get switchers. You have to downgrade your expectations for the weak minded.
With the PC world turning to Centrinos for laptops. The battery lie looks very good in the PC arena.
Apple could counter easily (I hope) using the Motorola 7457 or 7447. That is if Motorola can ship them ! The 7457 is very close (if not simple) drop in for the 7455. No performance gain at the same clock speed, but definitely lower power (0.18 to 0.13 um)
So Apple could improve their battery life in there G4 laptops by simply moving to the 7457
The 7457 dissipates 7.5 W Typical, 12.5 W Max at 1 GHz.
The 7455 dissipates 15 W Typical, 22 W Max at 1 Ghz.
Apple could counter easily (I hope) using the Motorola 7457 or 7447. That is if Motorola can ship them ! The 7457 is very close (if not simple) drop in for the 7455. No performance gain at the same clock speed, but definitely lower power (0.18 to 0.13 um)
So Apple could improve their battery life in there G4 laptops by simply moving to the 7457
The 7457 dissipates 7.5 W Typical, 12.5 W Max at 1 GHz.
The 7455 dissipates 15 W Typical, 22 W Max at 1 Ghz.
iTrains rumour disproven
And here I was getting excited at the thought of Apple making iTrains.
On the other hand, to read that 8X AGP and HyperTransport may come to the Mac is great. Well, great until some moron with a self-built PeeCee starts posting on MacRumours that there is a new 12X AGP and Turbo-HyperTransport that will be supposedly supported by Windows. The cycle of hype will continue then as it always has and some people will never be satisfied. Not me though; no Sir, I have faith in Apple's products and the money I have spent on a G3 iMac and a dual G4 PowerMac were money well spent. Whatever they do with the 970, I am sure that Apple will make computers that go the distance, as they always have, and I for one am looking forward to the day PowerBooks use these exciting new processors.
And here I was getting excited at the thought of Apple making iTrains.
On the other hand, to read that 8X AGP and HyperTransport may come to the Mac is great. Well, great until some moron with a self-built PeeCee starts posting on MacRumours that there is a new 12X AGP and Turbo-HyperTransport that will be supposedly supported by Windows. The cycle of hype will continue then as it always has and some people will never be satisfied. Not me though; no Sir, I have faith in Apple's products and the money I have spent on a G3 iMac and a dual G4 PowerMac were money well spent. Whatever they do with the 970, I am sure that Apple will make computers that go the distance, as they always have, and I for one am looking forward to the day PowerBooks use these exciting new processors.
I would definitely call it a mistake in translation because the French just says PCI express... which you'll know. No NCV, no train ;-)
Wasn't hypertransport rumored to be included with the PPC 970 anyway ?
It would sure be good because the PPC 970 bus is said to get a lot of traffic, e.g. not just CPU calls but other instructions, too.
I think they're probably right about the inclusion in PBs, the battery life ("autonomy") would just be too short with 0.13...
Originally posted by Flynnstone
With the PC world turning to Centrinos for laptops. The battery lie looks very good in the PC arena.
Apple could counter easily (I hope) using the Motorola 7457 or 7447. That is if Motorola can ship them ! The 7457 is very close (if not simple) drop in for the 7455. No performance gain at the same clock speed, but definitely lower power (0.18 to 0.13 um)
So Apple could improve their battery life in there G4 laptops by simply moving to the 7457
The 7457 dissipates 7.5 W Typical, 12.5 W Max at 1 GHz.
The 7455 dissipates 15 W Typical, 22 W Max at 1 Ghz.
Personally I'd like to see Apple move both the Powerbook and Powermac line to the 970 but I'm not sure the 970, in its existing design, has much headroom for the Powerbooks. The 19 watts at 1.2 ghz is at a lower voltage than the 1.8 ghz. It'll be hard to push the 970 beyond 1.2 ghz without upping the voltage and hence making it too hot for a laptop.
My bet is that Apple will keep the PBs with the G4s for the time being, but may introduce a dual 7457 machine, possibly a dual 1.2 ghz, as a stopgap measure. Of course, would Apple invest in a new motherboard (to accomodate dual CPUs) if it's only a short-term solution?
Read!
Doesn't anyone READ?!
In my earlier post, I stated that the translation was in error and it meant PCI-Express, which is PCI-X.
PCI-X: http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/
PCI-X 266/533 (basically PCI-X 2.0): http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pcix_20/
In fact, I gave an HUMAN translation.
Doesn't anyone READ?!
In my earlier post, I stated that the translation was in error and it meant PCI-Express, which is PCI-X.
PCI-X: http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/
PCI-X 266/533 (basically PCI-X 2.0): http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pcix_20/
In fact, I gave an HUMAN translation.
You know, it's really interesting to me that those that are advocates of the possibility of 970 based PowerBooks tend to say just that: it is a possibility. On the other hand, those that are nay-sayers seem to be tending to speak in such absolute terms. So, do they know something that we don't? Are these actually Apple employees who really know?
If they're not, I'd suggest that they speak a little more carefully. Just because you don't think that Apple will use the 970 in PowerBooks immediately doesn't mean they won't.
I know that. But just because you say it isn't true doesn't mean that it isn't.
While I will freely say that I don't know whether the 970s will be used in PowerBooks immediately, I honestly believe that there are good reasons to believe that they will. In any event, I look forward to seeing what comes...
Re: Powerbooks?
I saw no reference to mobile processors in the link you provided. Regardless, I wouldn't use the P4-M as a role-model for what a mobile chip should be. According to Intel, it typically dissipates 30 watts when running at full clockspeed...and at this power drain the laptops only last about 1 hr 15 min! You can get 2 hours out of the P4-M by cranking the clock speed way down (1.2 Ghz...slower real world performance than the PB G4). I would guess that a 1.2 Ghz 970 (19 watts) would not be able to get more than 2 hours of battery life unless IBM has added some power saving features which allow the core voltage (and hence clock speed) to fall even further below 1.1v (we have no indication that they have done this, though we don't know that they haven't). So yes, it is certainly possible to put a 970 in a PB, but do you really *want* the Powerbook to have the battery life of a P-4M laptop?
As for the "rumors" of lower power consumption for the 970 than IBM has stated, I haven't seen any, and if I did, I would put no faith in them. Even the "easy" rumors (e.g. has it entered production yet) are typically wrong, so it really would take blind faith to believe that they will report esoteric technical details accurately.
We've already disproven these figures using Motorola's and IBM's own documents. Plus it would be mathematically impossible for the PB G4 to get more than 1.5 hours of battery life out of a 55-61 watt-hour battery if the processor alone (G4 @ 1 Ghz) were consuming 30 watts. Simply put, the Ars Technica figures are wrong. I'm sure it was accidental, but they are wrong nonetheless.
Yes, I agree with this. Eventually, the 970 will almost surely appear in a PB. But it is very unlikely to happen at the same time as it appears in the towers. At the very least, I think it will take a later version of the .13 micron 970, if not waiting for the .09 micron 970. It would be nice to be wrong about this, but I just don't see it happening...
And this will somehow change after June? We will stop speculating on this site after that? ;-)
Yes, and most rumors (probably 90%) are false, whereas most published documents are not. That is the difference.
That is you choice, but in my experience you are just setting yourself up for disappointment!
But even at 1.8 Ghz and only released initially in the towers, I think there is plenty to be excited about. I actually think that the 970 will be more competitive than the SPEC marks indicate. I would guess that what the IBM rep said at MPF and they will be competitive with the Intel at "twice the clock speed" (i.e. a 1.8 Ghz 970 will compare favorably with a 3.6 Ghz P4 rather than a 2.8-3.0 Ghz P4, which is what the SPEC numbers would imply). The reason is that the 970 literally scores twice as high as the G4 at an equivalent Mhz: the 1 Ghz G4 scores 300 and 185 on SPECint and SPECfp respectively, and a 1 Ghz 970 scores over 550 and 600 on SPECint and SPECfp respectively. So according to SPEC, the 970 will easily be twice as fast as the G4 on average. Therefore, if the 970 is *not* twice as fast as the P4 at a given clock speed, then the implication is that the G4 is actually slower PER CLOCK CYCLE than the Pentium 4 - i.e., we have the Mhz myth in reverse!!! But nobody seriously questions that the G4 is more efficient than the P4 per clock cycle, it's just that it's not twice as efficient (so a 2.8 Ghz P4 is faster than a 1.4 Ghz G4, but it's not twice as fast).
So if we accept the notion that the G4 is at least as efficient as the P4 PER CLOCK CYCLE (and a myriad of real world benchmarks confirm that, on average, the G4 is actually faster than the P4 per clock cycle...it just doesn't clock nearly as high), then the one of two things must be true:
1) For whatever reason, SPEC does not provide an entirely accurate comparison BETWEEN the Pentium 4 and the PPC architecture. It's not off by an order magnitude, but for whatever reason it does seem to overstate the performance of the P4 by a non-trivial margin.
2) For whatever reason, SPEC does not provide an entirely accurate comparison between processors WITHIN the SAME processor architecture, i.e. it is inaccurate in comparing the PPC 970 and the MPC 7455.
Clearly, 1) seems far more reasonable than 2). I don't think SPEC is a terrible benchmark, but obviously either 1) or 2) must be true. Both cannot be false, because then we have a contradiction. And given my choice, I would strongly suspect that 1) is far more likely to be true than 2)...it would be bizarre to think that SPEC somehow is a more accurate benchmark when comparing an x86 processor to a PPC processor than comparing one PPC processor to another. So I suspect that the 970 will be pretty competitive even when Intel switches to the 90 nm process for the P4.
Of course this is just talking scalar integer/fp. In terms of vector processing and MP aware apps or generally multitasking, the 970 will smoke the P4 (assuming Apple releases at least one MP 970 config).
I saw no reference to mobile processors in the link you provided. Regardless, I wouldn't use the P4-M as a role-model for what a mobile chip should be. According to Intel, it typically dissipates 30 watts when running at full clockspeed...and at this power drain the laptops only last about 1 hr 15 min! You can get 2 hours out of the P4-M by cranking the clock speed way down (1.2 Ghz...slower real world performance than the PB G4). I would guess that a 1.2 Ghz 970 (19 watts) would not be able to get more than 2 hours of battery life unless IBM has added some power saving features which allow the core voltage (and hence clock speed) to fall even further below 1.1v (we have no indication that they have done this, though we don't know that they haven't). So yes, it is certainly possible to put a 970 in a PB, but do you really *want* the Powerbook to have the battery life of a P-4M laptop?
As for the "rumors" of lower power consumption for the 970 than IBM has stated, I haven't seen any, and if I did, I would put no faith in them. Even the "easy" rumors (e.g. has it entered production yet) are typically wrong, so it really would take blind faith to believe that they will report esoteric technical details accurately.
We've already disproven these figures using Motorola's and IBM's own documents. Plus it would be mathematically impossible for the PB G4 to get more than 1.5 hours of battery life out of a 55-61 watt-hour battery if the processor alone (G4 @ 1 Ghz) were consuming 30 watts. Simply put, the Ars Technica figures are wrong. I'm sure it was accidental, but they are wrong nonetheless.
Yes, I agree with this. Eventually, the 970 will almost surely appear in a PB. But it is very unlikely to happen at the same time as it appears in the towers. At the very least, I think it will take a later version of the .13 micron 970, if not waiting for the .09 micron 970. It would be nice to be wrong about this, but I just don't see it happening...
And this will somehow change after June? We will stop speculating on this site after that? ;-)
Yes, and most rumors (probably 90%) are false, whereas most published documents are not. That is the difference.
and user wattage reported in current docs, that I choose to believe them.
That is you choice, but in my experience you are just setting yourself up for disappointment!
But even at 1.8 Ghz and only released initially in the towers, I think there is plenty to be excited about. I actually think that the 970 will be more competitive than the SPEC marks indicate. I would guess that what the IBM rep said at MPF and they will be competitive with the Intel at "twice the clock speed" (i.e. a 1.8 Ghz 970 will compare favorably with a 3.6 Ghz P4 rather than a 2.8-3.0 Ghz P4, which is what the SPEC numbers would imply). The reason is that the 970 literally scores twice as high as the G4 at an equivalent Mhz: the 1 Ghz G4 scores 300 and 185 on SPECint and SPECfp respectively, and a 1 Ghz 970 scores over 550 and 600 on SPECint and SPECfp respectively. So according to SPEC, the 970 will easily be twice as fast as the G4 on average. Therefore, if the 970 is *not* twice as fast as the P4 at a given clock speed, then the implication is that the G4 is actually slower PER CLOCK CYCLE than the Pentium 4 - i.e., we have the Mhz myth in reverse!!! But nobody seriously questions that the G4 is more efficient than the P4 per clock cycle, it's just that it's not twice as efficient (so a 2.8 Ghz P4 is faster than a 1.4 Ghz G4, but it's not twice as fast).
So if we accept the notion that the G4 is at least as efficient as the P4 PER CLOCK CYCLE (and a myriad of real world benchmarks confirm that, on average, the G4 is actually faster than the P4 per clock cycle...it just doesn't clock nearly as high), then the one of two things must be true:
1) For whatever reason, SPEC does not provide an entirely accurate comparison BETWEEN the Pentium 4 and the PPC architecture. It's not off by an order magnitude, but for whatever reason it does seem to overstate the performance of the P4 by a non-trivial margin.
2) For whatever reason, SPEC does not provide an entirely accurate comparison between processors WITHIN the SAME processor architecture, i.e. it is inaccurate in comparing the PPC 970 and the MPC 7455.
Clearly, 1) seems far more reasonable than 2). I don't think SPEC is a terrible benchmark, but obviously either 1) or 2) must be true. Both cannot be false, because then we have a contradiction. And given my choice, I would strongly suspect that 1) is far more likely to be true than 2)...it would be bizarre to think that SPEC somehow is a more accurate benchmark when comparing an x86 processor to a PPC processor than comparing one PPC processor to another. So I suspect that the 970 will be pretty competitive even when Intel switches to the 90 nm process for the P4.
Of course this is just talking scalar integer/fp. In terms of vector processing and MP aware apps or generally multitasking, the 970 will smoke the P4 (assuming Apple releases at least one MP 970 config).
I'm certainly not. But I think we can be pretty confident based simply on published facts and common sense that the PPC 970 will arrive in towers significantly before it arrives in Powerbooks. If I'm wrong, that will be great, but I doubt that I will be. For better or for worse, it has historically never been a bad bet to be less optimistic than the rumors are suggesting. But hey, at least I am pretty optimistic about the performance (see above)...
If you bothered to read the rest of my post, you would've seen why I said this.
Apple just released new PowerBooks, and a 15" G4 PowerBook is on the way. These are also newly designed PowerBooks. The design usually changes when they go from one architecture to another. Just look at the G3-G4 transition. Sure, they might be able to squeeze a 970 into the current 17" or 15" PowerBooks, but knowing Apple, they'd want a new design, and the new designs of the 12" and 17" PowerBooks are going to go through at least 1 or 2 revisions.
Also, if you look at the difference from when the G4 was introduced in desktops and when it was introduced in laptops, you'll see an almost one and a half year delay. The desktops were released in August of 1999, and the G4 PowerBooks were released in January of 2001.
Based on these two reasons (1. It would be marketing suicide to release faster notebooks just months after their flagship model started shipping, and 2. There is usually a delay in the time from when processor is introduced in deskops and when it is released into notebooks.) if is safe to conclude that 970 PowerBooks are going to be behind the desktops until at least 2004.
Just trust me. You'd be pissed if you just bought a 17" PowerBook, and Apple introduced faster ones in July...
Re: Read!
PCI-X and PCI Express are NOT the same thing.
PCI-X is a parallel based system and PCI Express is serial based.
Is the translation PCI-X or PCI Express?
I think PCI Express is more logical.
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Doesn't anyone READ?!
In my earlier post, I stated that the translation was in error and it meant PCI-Express, which is PCI-X.
PCI-X: http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pciexpress/
PCI-X 266/533 (basically PCI-X 2.0): http://www.pcisig.com/specifications/pcix_20/
In fact, I gave an HUMAN translation.
PCI-X and PCI Express are NOT the same thing.
PCI-X is a parallel based system and PCI Express is serial based.
Is the translation PCI-X or PCI Express?
I think PCI Express is more logical.
The YEAR of the LAPTOP
What I think after reading all this is that:
The 15" powerbook redesign has been delayed because it waits for the CPU to arrive. This may be because Apple is:
What I think after reading all this is that:
The 15" powerbook redesign has been delayed because it waits for the CPU to arrive. This may be because Apple is:
- waiting for MOTOROLA to be able to provide a 7457 G4 in quantity
- redesigning the motherboard to accept dual CPU (G4). But then don't we still have heating issues?
- It awaits the 970 -aka G5- that it will use at a lower speed - 1,2 Ghz or even 1Ghz- in order to not affect battery autonomy too much.
[/list=1]
Anyway, there must be a reason for the 15" delay. Surely Apple should have announced newer flavors of these by now.
This seems even more obvious to me when 2003 was named "Year of the Laptop" by Apple. And also "Apple's best year ever" by Jobs. The laptops just can't remain with 1GHZ G4 for another year and a half! No way.
Re: The YEAR of the LAPTOP
Exactly what I'm thinking. The new Intel laptop chips are getting tons of ink - unless apple does something outstanding, they are going to loose a lot of ground they gained.
And not to mention the fact that I can;t wait to buy a new 15" powerbook.
Exactly what I'm thinking. The new Intel laptop chips are getting tons of ink - unless apple does something outstanding, they are going to loose a lot of ground they gained.
And not to mention the fact that I can;t wait to buy a new 15" powerbook.
Re: Re: Read!
From what I've read, PCI Express is not backward-compatible, and PCI-X is. I hope they would use PCI-X... so naturally they probably won't.
From what I've read, PCI Express is not backward-compatible, and PCI-X is. I hope they would use PCI-X... so naturally they probably won't.
What's the point?
What's the point of calling this the "Year" of the notebook computer if they aren't going to put the 970 in there? Hmmm. Hmmmm. HmmmM!!
What's the point of calling this the "Year" of the notebook computer if they aren't going to put the 970 in there? Hmmm. Hmmmm. HmmmM!!