or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple's G5 come from IBM? - Page 32

post #1241 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Aris:
<strong>ok ppl its confirmed now.

YES the apple g5 will come from IBM.

now let this abomination of a thread DIE!!!!!!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

There has been no confirmation by Apple, nor an official yea by IBM. So I guess that we have to keep this thread going until early 2004
post #1242 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by tiramisubomb:
<strong>The current G4 has a FSB bandwidth of 1GB/sec. How about Rapio IO compared to IBM PPC 970</strong><hr></blockquote>

RapidIO in its current incarnation can do about 2 GB/sec, although it has room to grow. The 970 has aggregate bandwidth of 6.4 GB/sec (3.2 in each direction) at 1.8 GHz, and more as the clock rate climbs.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #1243 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

RapidIO in its current incarnation can do about 2 GB/sec, although it has room to grow. The 970 has aggregate bandwidth of 6.4 GB/sec (3.2 in each direction) at 1.8 GHz, and more as the clock rate climbs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

look here
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/apr2001/tech-feat.html" target="_blank">RapidIO on IBM's website</a>

there you get an answer...
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #1244 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>

look here
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/apr2001/tech-feat.html" target="_blank">RapidIO on IBM's website</a>

there you get an answer...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was basing my number on a 16-bit wide 500 MHz implementation with 32-byte cache lines being the normally transfered data. This is 16 Gb/sec (== 2 GB/sec). If you consider that RIO will soon actually be shipping 1 GHz parts (?? I'm not sure ??) then they can do 4 GB/sec. The 1 GHz GPUL bus (for a hypothetical 2 GHz GPUL processor) will do 7.1 GB/sec.

To be fair the GPUL bus actually only does half its bandwidth in each direction, unlike the RIO which can actually get better than the quote numbers if operating unidirectionally. So if you have a case where the processor is either only outputting data or inputting data, then RIO will actually be faster in its high end configuration. This isn't a particularly interesting case, however, and the bi-directional case is far more important.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #1245 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
I was basing my number on a 16-bit wide 500 MHz implementation with 32-byte cache lines being the normally transfered data. This is 16 Gb/sec (== 2 GB/sec). If you consider that RIO will soon actually be shipping 1 GHz parts (?? I'm not sure ??) then they can do 4 GB/sec. The 1 GHz GPUL bus (for a hypothetical 2 GHz GPUL processor) will do 7.1 GB/sec.

To be fair the GPUL bus actually only does half its bandwidth in each direction, unlike the RIO which can actually get better than the quote numbers if operating unidirectionally. So if you have a case where the processor is either only outputting data or inputting data, then RIO will actually be faster in its high end configuration. This isn't a particularly interesting case, however, and the bi-directional case is far more important.</strong><hr></blockquote>

yes - you're absolutely right on this. my link to that page was for people like tiramisubomb (who asked) and shall in no way be a thing for you. i just clicked on 'reply' on the last message belonging to that topic... what i found interesting is that ibm is on the RapidIO trip too ;-)
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #1246 of 1258
I think the new Generation processor will come from IBM, but it probly wont be the 970, apple has something else simmerler i think
then again <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
post #1247 of 1258
So now we're positive that the next Apple processor may or may not be coming from IBM.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
Reply
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
Reply
post #1248 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by iNub:
<strong>So now we're positive that the next Apple processor may or may not be coming from IBM.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep!!
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> something like that
post #1249 of 1258
minor nitpick: the 970's bus actually clocks at 450MHz DDR.
post #1250 of 1258
First of all where did you see that it clocks at 450 DDR?
\tSecond, I was talking to an old friend that used to work for IBM this weekend. He had just come back from looking for another job with IBM. He had gone down to talk with some friends of his who still work in the Microprocessor devision of the company. They effectively told him that they could get him a job working on the new chip for Apple. That they needed a few extra guys on staff when they ramp up production next year. They were very straight forward with him on this subject. Although when question further about the this new chip they became secretive, especially toward the time of release etc. So, it really looks as if this chip is for apple. I mean I have no doubts any longer on the subject. We'll see the MPC7457 first though in Jan and then the 970 later toward the end of the year.
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #1251 of 1258
The next BigThing in processors will most likly be IBM now when <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Elio
post #1252 of 1258
Well...

IBM Fishkill becomes operational at 130nm in mid-2003, moving to 90nm.

The PowerPC will start 130nm, moving to 90nm.

Q3 2003 seems like a reasonable date for the Power Mac G5.

Barto
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 #1253 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I was basing my number on a 16-bit wide 500 MHz implementation with 32-byte cache lines being the normally transfered data. This is 16 Gb/sec (== 2 GB/sec). If you consider that RIO will soon actually be shipping 1 GHz parts (?? I'm not sure ??) then they can do 4 GB/sec. The 1 GHz GPUL bus (for a hypothetical 2 GHz GPUL processor) will do 7.1 GB/sec.

To be fair the GPUL bus actually only does half its bandwidth in each direction, unlike the RIO which can actually get better than the quote numbers if operating unidirectionally. So if you have a case where the processor is either only outputting data or inputting data, then RIO will actually be faster in its high end configuration. This isn't a particularly interesting case, however, and the bi-directional case is far more important.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The IBM/RIO page also states the following:

Sustained Operations include all transaction overhead and assume fully loaded full duplex communications

1.\t32-byte Operation is 50% Efficient
2.\t256-byte Operation is &gt;90% Efficient

For Unidirectional traffic 32-byte is &gt;70% Efficient, 256-byte is &gt;95% Efficient
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #1254 of 1258
My question is: _If_ they did go RapidIO-16bit, that ties up 76 pins. There isn't supposed to be a L3 cache. What in the bloody blazes are the other 500 of the 576 total pins for?

HyperTransport also doesn't tie up anywhere near that number of pins.
post #1255 of 1258
They charge by the pin count don't they? Or there there to confuse the masses.
(nice sentence structure, hey)
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #1256 of 1258
I hope Billy Boy likes it served hot...one GPUL coming up...

Only the one?
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #1257 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>My question is: _If_ they did go RapidIO-16bit, that ties up 76 pins. There isn't supposed to be a L3 cache. What in the bloody blazes are the other 500 of the 576 total pins for?

HyperTransport also doesn't tie up anywhere near that number of pins.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Power supply.
IBM give a figure of 161 signal pins for the 970, I would expect about another 250-300 for power supply (the 7455 uses about 200 pins for power supplies). The remaining pins are probably unconnected, but might be used by other processors which might fit the same package, later.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #1258 of 1258
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?