or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Summer G5 Release Says Forbes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Summer G5 Release Says Forbes

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
An hard question here : what is the most performant in general : sdram 133 mhz with very performant L3 cache or ddr ram 133 mhz *2 without L3 cache ?
Perhaps only apple engineers have an answer ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Easy answer. Faster FSB, DDR memory and a processor with an L3 cache.
-Moo to you too!
<a href="http://www.cowofwar.com" target="_blank">www.cowofwar.com</a>
Reply
-Moo to you too!
<a href="http://www.cowofwar.com" target="_blank">www.cowofwar.com</a>
Reply
post #2 of 36
In <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/31/0131tentech.html" target="_blank">this story</a> <a href="http://www.forbes.com" target="_blank">Forbes</a> says most likely release of G5 by summer. Since when was Forbes in the rumormill?

[quote]Out on the horizon lies another chip, this one called the G5, that Motorola has been working on for some time. There's not much known about it, other than the fact that it's supposed to be a lot faster and more powerful than the G4. Speculation is rampant about when the chip will first appear in an Apple computer, and the most likely time is this summer, when Apple holds its Macworld summer event in New York. It was at Macworld last summer that Chief Executive Steve Jobs first unveiled the Quicksilver design enclosure for the G4 line.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>
post #3 of 36
Heh, well if the G5 is not ready this summer then this level of public expectation is going to be making the guys at Apple and Motorola awfully nervous. AI Forums is one thing, Forbes is entirely different.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #4 of 36
is it me or does the article seem to use the QS release at MWNY'01 as the reasoning for G5 at MWNY'02?! yeah, that's sound deduction...

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
====
"The Matrix is here, and it's vegan-friendly." (TM) 2004, Trinity Life Systems
Reply
post #5 of 36
I hope they're right (I think they're wrong) for Apple's sake, because if I'm right and G5's come next Jan, this is really bad PR for our boys in Cupertino <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
post #6 of 36
" G5's come next Jan, this is really bad PR for our boys in Cupertino"

Why, ass u m e that the G4 continues to progress, for example to the HiP7(re: 0.13µ process) and by the end of the year is @ 1.6GHz to 2.0GHz(re: extended pipelines 4 - 7 - 10stages?).

Throw in DDR sDram with a faster frontside bus. These machine will scream. Didn't Motorola's literature for the MPC7455 now contains "Full symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support Allows customers to easily scale their designs with multiple processors to deliver much higher system performance "

I'm not sure exactly what Full symmetric multiprocessing support means over what the MPC7450 or MPC7451 means, but I think that opens the door for more that dual machines.

Maybe Quad processors are now a possibility?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #7 of 36
A quad processor machine would only be made for the likes of Maya, and the system bus would have to be soooooo fast, only 333Mhz DDR would really do.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #8 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>" G5's come next Jan, this is really bad PR for our boys in Cupertino"

Why, ass u m e that the G4 continues to progress, for example to the HiP7(re: 0.13µ process) and by the end of the year is @ 1.6GHz to 2.0GHz(re: extended pipelines 4 - 7 - 10stages?).

Throw in DDR sDram with a faster frontside bus. These machine will scream. Didn't Motorola's literature for the MPC7455 now contains "Full symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support Allows customers to easily scale their designs with multiple processors to deliver much higher system performance "

I'm not sure exactly what Full symmetric multiprocessing support means over what the MPC7450 or MPC7451 means, but I think that opens the door for more that dual machines.

Maybe Quad processors are now a possibility?</strong><hr></blockquote>


My point was simply that now a major, mainstream, international publication is (sort of) predicting a G5 by July, and that speculation will reach many more people than these boards. Therefore, if that anticipation is raised in the general, mac-using public, and then doesn't materialize, that would be bad PR.

I hope that the G4 DOES continue to scale throughout the year, and that the new systems intoed in 2002 will continue to rock and increase in spec and speed. I'm just saying that now instead of a few mac-geeks like us hoping for the G5, the general public will be hoping too.
post #9 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by mattyj:
<strong>A quad processor machine would only be made for the likes of Maya, and the system bus would have to be soooooo fast, only 333Mhz DDR would really do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

People who only use Maya wouldn't care that much about quads right now, since it doesn't support MP yet.

But it's not always used exclusively. Maya arrived for OS X because of people clamoring to run it on the same platform they ran other, related apps on - After Effects, Photoshop, FCP, etc. Even if a four-way MP system couldn't accelerate any one app that substantially, it could allow several powerful apps to do heavy processing all at once, which could potentially cut the time required to complete a project more than doing each job sequentially on a single, faster processor.

Heck, Maya could run its interface on one or two processors and render in a background thread on the rest.

Given that there are a lot of graphics artists who use a suite of programs to get work done, this could be a worthwhile high end setup. It wouldn't just be for Maya (or insert high-end 3D app here). And with the onboard SuperDrive, you could burn your work onto a DVD.

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #10 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by I Have Questions:
<strong>


My point was simply that now a major, mainstream, international publication is (sort of) predicting a G5 by July, and that speculation will reach many more people than these boards. Therefore, if that anticipation is raised in the general, mac-using public, and then doesn't materialize, that would be bad PR.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Isn't there a quote "any PR is good PR"?

J/K...

Look ...The one thing I can take from this and other articles like this is Apple has stirred the personal computer waters and other sectors of the business world are finally starting to take notice.....Apple has reestablished itself as a pacesetter (perhaps THE pacesetter), and all other PC manufactures are trying to following suit, or hoping to outguess them.

For the first time in YEARS, the threat of a reinvigorated Apple looms large because in this down economy the "Mercedes" of the personal computing world is MAKING MONEY... and isn't that the bottom line?
I haven't found a witty signature I like yet....but when I do, you'll be the first to know.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply
I haven't found a witty signature I like yet....but when I do, you'll be the first to know.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply
post #11 of 36
Forbes has been saying a lot in the past.
A lot of BS too. I personally think our arguments are as least as well founded as theirs.
Only thing they have we don't is publicity.

G-News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #12 of 36
7445/7455 don't support no front side bus.

Motorola announces new chips before they come out (unless there a an original 'G' chip, like the 7400 in which case they put a tiny bit of info on the roadmap and keep quiet). The last G4 chip was the Apollo. There has been no G4 chip announcements after that, so presumably the 74x5 will be the last G4 chips (ignoring a HiPoMos7 variant)

The only increase in FSB therefore is 133 &gt; 166.

'scaling with multiple CPUs'??? Give me a break. 2 CPUs, sure. 4, get real! Yeah 4 CPUs sharing a 133MHz bus. Ok with an Alpha (RIP) or Athlon, but they have separate busses for each CPU. The MPX bus has multiple CPUs on the same bus. So if all cpus were processing tasks at the same time they would each have a 33MHz effective bus. Motorola, gimmie a break.

Barto

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #13 of 36
Maybe this should be a thread, but I need a book called Multi-Processors For Dummies because I have question about Barto's post.

If you have 4 processors, each with dedicated busses, what controls I/O access to prevent conflicts? Does one chip act as manager and simply farm processing jobs out to the additional chips? This is how I assume the process is handled.

If the processors must share a single bus, say 133Mhz, they must share the bus four ways which effectively means they get 33Mhz (again, just repeating Barto). So how does this affect fast writes to fast drives? Does it? Could it?

What's the "dream" setup for multiple processors for a multi-proc Gx series Mac tower? I'm talking about bus architecture, I/O setups. Please explain the complicated stuff.....this is all really interesting to those of us who just want a fast computer but have never bothered to learn the science!

Drew
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #14 of 36
Thread Starter 
so both wired and forbes are predicting a summer release.

Interesting....
-Moo to you too!
<a href="http://www.cowofwar.com" target="_blank">www.cowofwar.com</a>
Reply
-Moo to you too!
<a href="http://www.cowofwar.com" target="_blank">www.cowofwar.com</a>
Reply
post #15 of 36
If the G5 doesn't arrive until MWSF, then Apple is fu[ked. Nobody is buying the towers, even with that silly 133 MHz speed bump the Powermacs are obviously over priced and under powered. OS X is still a dog on most Macs, and without the G5 Apple can't put the really fast G4s in iMacs or iBooks.

What Apple needs is to have G5s in the Powermacs, w/ 400 MHz system bus, 1.2-1.6 GHz, and G4s in all other Macs. iMacs should clock over 1 GHz w/ 266 MHz system bus, the Titanium should go as high as possible to keep heat and battery life under control (at least 800 Mhz with the new Apollo, according to power usage ratings), and the iBook should be clocked just a bit under the Titanium, maybe 533-667 for the iBook (133 MHz bus), and 733-867 for the Titanium (266 MHz system bus). These speeds would get Apple through the year and then in 2003 another mondo speed bump would be needed across the product lines, as Intel will be at 3-4 GHz by 2003.

The towers are Apple's biggest money maker, even more than the iMacs. iMacs are good for marketshare, but the big profits come from powermacs. With pathetic tower sales, Apple is doomed.

The only other alternative for Apple would be to hire a crew to take out key Intel fabs and disrupt Pentium 4 production to buy time for G5 development. Otherwise Apple is doomed.
post #16 of 36
Not true JD lots of people are buying the duel 1ghz machines.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #17 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>If the G5 doesn't arrive until MWSF, then Apple is fu[ked. Nobody is buying the towers, even with that silly 133 MHz speed bump the Powermacs are obviously over priced and under powered.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, a lot of guys on these boards, despite basically being reminded that there might be a G5 in the next week / month / year on a daily basis, have ordered a dual 1GHz machine, and I'd imagine this is even more true for the general, less G5-informed public.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #18 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>If ... then Apple is fu[ked.

With ..., Apple is doomed.

Otherwise Apple is doomed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Relax, JD, the sky isn't falling. I believe your concern is warranted. Apple should crack their Motorola whip to ensure healthy processors in the future. They need to distinguish themselves if they want any kind of market share.

However, Apple's been around a long time. I believe they'll be around a while longer, don't you?

G5s by Fall/Winter 2002 would be fine in the big picture of things. We'll whine and gripe if they're not out in New York, but the World of Apple will go on, MS will continue with a 95% monopoly, people will still buy Dells, and both MS and Dell will try to crib as much as they can from Apple, and we will continue to forecast either Apple's imminent death, or Apple's imminent ascendency to the OS throne.

You know, I think you should try some<a href="http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/archives/2002_01_06_crazyapplerumor_archive.htm" target="_blank">sexbots</a> from CARS.

[edit: fast and hairy mouse-button fingers]

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: GardenOfEarthlyDelights ]</p>
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #19 of 36
IMO if Apple doesn't release new PowerMacs at MWNY, they will at Seybold. Seems to happen a lot; when they're not ready for MW, they use the later conference as backup. Wonder how many people will think of that at MWNY time.

PS: or for that matter, Apple Expo Paris is also a backup candidate, no? Don't be surprised.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #20 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>OS X is still a dog on most Macs</strong><hr></blockquote>

Most old Macs, perhaps. Any Mac currently shipping today, with the possible exception of the iBook, will run OS X just fine. I tried out the new iMac at an Apple store and OS X wasn't giving it any trouble that I could see.
post #21 of 36
Interesting survey results of pro users and what they want.

<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-02/2002b-0201-quadswanted.phtml" target="_blank">http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-02/2002b-0201-quadswanted.phtml</a>

We don't need no stinking G5's, we just need more POWER!
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #22 of 36
Hey just because JD is paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him! Apple is doomed...DOOMED I SAY!

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #23 of 36
Junky,

I just read you on that other crazy thread about the G5 being canceled. My advise..........take your meds, lie down, and forget about spreading the BS for awhile. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #24 of 36
Dewdrops, to answer a few of your questions, its not that simple.
A single processor is not constantly saturating the bus. In fact I would wager that even a dual 1Ghz G4 under heavy load is not maxing the buses bandwidth. That's something you need to distinguish between, bandwidth and latency. Bandwidth is how big your pipe is, like 128-bits. Latency is how fast things get there, determined mainly by the Mhz speed of the. When processors need information very often they don't need a lot of it, just a few memory addresses or something. But, processors DO want it fast, which is why we see a lot of things like the RAMBUS memory bus which is a much higher Mhz, but it also much narrower. So maybe a RAMBUS memory bus can only deliver 1/4 as much per clock cycle, but has 8 times the number of clock cycles per second.
The short answer is, no, putting four processors on a 133Mhz bus is not like giving them each a 33Mhz bus. The problem will get exponentially worse as you add processors though, because as you add more there are more wasted cycles as a request for one 32-bit integer from memory takes just as long as the request for four of them (on a 128-bit bus).
As far as disk writes are concerned, a hard disk couldn't even keep up with a 66Mhz, 64-bit PCI bus.
post #25 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by The Swan:
<strong>In fact I would wager that even a dual 1Ghz G4 under heavy load is not maxing the buses bandwidth.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll take that wager... even the slowest G4 can grind through an astounding amount of data quite easily at its full memory bandwidth, even without using the AltiVec unit.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #26 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by The Swan:
<strong>Dewdrops, to answer a few of your questions, its not that simple.
A single processor is not constantly saturating the bus. In fact I would wager that even a dual 1Ghz G4 under heavy load is not maxing the buses bandwidth. That's something you need to distinguish between, bandwidth and latency. Bandwidth is how big your pipe is, like 128-bits. Latency is how fast things get there, determined mainly by the Mhz speed of the. When processors need information very often they don't need a lot of it, just a few memory addresses or something. But, processors DO want it fast, which is why we see a lot of things like the RAMBUS memory bus which is a much higher Mhz, but it also much narrower. So maybe a RAMBUS memory bus can only deliver 1/4 as much per clock cycle, but has 8 times the number of clock cycles per second.
The short answer is, no, putting four processors on a 133Mhz bus is not like giving them each a 33Mhz bus. The problem will get exponentially worse as you add processors though, because as you add more there are more wasted cycles as a request for one 32-bit integer from memory takes just as long as the request for four of them (on a 128-bit bus).
As far as disk writes are concerned, a hard disk couldn't even keep up with a 66Mhz, 64-bit PCI bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hold on there buddy, you're way off the mark here.

First, Rambus has much higher latency than both DDR and PC 133 but it has more bandwith than both and that's where its strength lies. In other words it's exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. Just 'cause RDRAM is only 16 bits and runs at 800 Mhz doesn't mean it's low latency and narrow bandwidth.

And yes 4 processors would absolutely choke a 133 Mhz bus and even 2 must definitely be choking it now.

Most importantly, the majority of applications where the performance of the computer in general and the memory in particular are important are things like video/multimedia, scientific calculations and 3D. These are usually more sensitive to bandwith than they are to latency, so as long as latency is not horrible, bandwith rules...

For your reference :

dual channel PC800 RDRAM (as in p4) = 3.2 GB/s

PC 2100 DDR = 2.1 GB/s

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</p>
post #27 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>Heh, well if the G5 is not ready this summer then this level of public expectation is going to be making the guys at Apple and Motorola awfully nervous. AI Forums is one thing, Forbes is entirely different.</strong><hr></blockquote>

While I agree with the sentiment you expressed, keep in mind that this is forbes.com saying this, not Forbes the magazine. They also didn't say anything, other than "speculation is that the G5 will come out this summer" -- who knows where they got their speculation from? Likely all of the self-created rumours on The Register, in forums like these, etc.

I don't blame anyone for pining away for a G5 -- we'd all love Apple to make a quantum leap in processor power, and soon. But there is that nasty thing called reality...
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #28 of 36
<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-02/2002b-0201-futurg5.phtml" target="_blank">Architosh G5 article</a>

Hmmm. Architosh have apparently published another G5 article, this one called Future G5 News: Test boxes, schedules and more.... According to macsurfer that is.

I haven't had any luck getting through. If you have, why not share with the rest of the us?
post #29 of 36
Bumping back to the top. This thread was pushed to the bottom as a reply was added to it when the AI clock was somehow set to April 15/16, 1990.
post #30 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
<strong>Forbes has been saying a lot in the past.
A lot of BS too. I personally think our arguments are as least as well founded as theirs.
Only thing they have we don't is publicity.

G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed. In the age of the internet, even mainstream pubs have a hard time resisting poaching speculation from less savory (i.e. us) sources. Say something often enough and people take notice...

Caler
You can't get here from there.
Reply
You can't get here from there.
Reply
post #31 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>
While I agree with the sentiment you expressed, keep in mind that this is forbes.com saying this, not Forbes the magazine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

If this is a factor then its disturbing that online news services seem to feel that its okay to let their journalistic standards be more lax than in the printed media. I don't read Forbes or forbes.com so I don't know if it holds for them.

[quote]<strong>
They also didn't say anything, other than "speculation is that the G5 will come out this summer" -- who knows where they got their speculation from? Likely all of the self-created rumours on The Register, in forums like these, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

True. On the subject of The Register though, they normally don't seem to be indulging in "self-created rumours"... perhaps you have some evidence for it, but I don't. And when they speculate they're usually clear about it. They are just collecting emails that anybody could have sent, so spoofing them wouldn't be terribly hard. Looking over their G5 rumours going back a year, they imply having numerous sources (i.e. email addresses in the "from" field) which means it would have to be a sustained effort at spoofing them. Possible, but likely?

<strong> [quote]I don't blame anyone for pining away for a G5 -- we'd all love Apple to make a quantum leap in processor power, and soon. But there is that nasty thing called reality...</strong><hr></blockquote>

True... but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. I (and most people on AI) don't have any conduits of information about this stuff, aside from what we read on the rumour sites. If there were a tightly lidded skunkworks project going on, rumour sites are where we'd hear about it. It has happened before.

In your case, you seem to be used to hearing about it 2nd hand from people you know... but if that was identified as a known security leak and cut off, then you wouldn't know the difference, would you? Especially if the Apollo project wasn't put under the same lid and so you heard about that as usual. Yeah, I know... it seems like a stretch, but it is possible.

The mythical G5 wouldn't come out of thin air, and there is nothing unrealistic about a tight, very focussed development team working feverishly on a project in some back room and not leaking any information about it to the outside world. I've seen it happen at my company (in retrospect, of course, since I didn't know it was there until it went "public"). Its past would no doubt be rooted in the Core 2K project that started at Somerset, and/or work done at Motorola. Its existance wouldn't start leaking until people outside the core team started to have to see it -- people at fabs, people in testing, etc. And, strangely, that's where most of the supposed rumours are from.

There are lots of reasons to believe that this could be true, even aside from the rumours (and the often silly "reasoning" displayed on AI forums). I started listing them, but why bother? We've all seen them repeatedly. I think everybody now accepts that the new PowerMacs will last us at least until either WWDC or MWNY. After that it is only a matter of time until the next processor Apple will use, and I don't think anybody argues that Apple will never have another processor. So the argument boils down to a +/- 6 month window centered roughly on MWSF next year (with extreme optimists and pessimists being outside of that window).

As for the performance of the chip, there is no inherent reason why a completely new design won't be on par with x86 chips in the same time frame... and the cleaner design of the PPC ISA (less legacy baggage) gives some hope that it will be better. The main issue will be which fab technology it uses, but there are many advanced foundries to choose from so severing the ties to Motorola's questionable foundries may be a good thing.

So have I said anything unreasonable here, Moki?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #32 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>

Hold on there buddy, you're way off the mark here.

First, Rambus has much higher latency than both DDR and PC 133 but it has more bandwith than both and that's where its strength lies. In other words it's exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. Just 'cause RDRAM is only 16 bits and runs at 800 Mhz doesn't mean it's low latency and narrow bandwidth.

And yes 4 processors would absolutely choke a 133 Mhz bus and even 2 must definitely be choking it now.

Most importantly, the majority of applications where the performance of the computer in general and the memory in particular are important are things like video/multimedia, scientific calculations and 3D. These are usually more sensitive to bandwith than they are to latency, so as long as latency is not horrible, bandwith rules...

For your reference :

dual channel PC800 RDRAM (as in p4) = 3.2 GB/s

PC 2100 DDR = 2.1 GB/s

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The memory bandwith of the mac is not very good that's why Motorola and Apple choose a different way, they make a very efficient L3 cache with DDR ram with a memory bandwitch up to 4 GByte per second.

An hard question here : what is the most performant in general : sdram 133 mhz with very performant L3 cache or ddr ram 133 mhz *2 without L3 cache ?
Perhaps only apple engineers have an answer ...
post #33 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
An hard question here : what is the most performant in general : sdram 133 mhz with very performant L3 cache or ddr ram 133 mhz *2 without L3 cache ?
Perhaps only apple engineers have an answer ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Depends a lot on what you plan to do.
For transient data (DSP type stuff), caches are completely useless as items of data tend to not get re-used at all.
On the other hand, programs that have working sets smaller than 2MB can get a huge performance improvement over DDR w/o L3.
So, it all depends on the app in question.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #34 of 36
Timmortis, when you refer to latency I believe you are speaking about the actual reponse time of the memory itself. I am talking about the time it takes the data to flow over the bus once retrieved from memory.
post #35 of 36
[quote]Originally posted by The Swan:
<strong>Timmortis, when you refer to latency I believe you are speaking about the actual reponse time of the memory itself. I am talking about the time it takes the data to flow over the bus once retrieved from memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>

From the processor's point of view the two are indistinguishable. The processor only cares about how long after it asks for a piece of data that it appears (which includes the memory response time and the bus transmission time).
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #36 of 36
Nevermind, I give up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Summer G5 Release Says Forbes