or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 970 Production info
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

970 Production info - Page 3

post #81 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by engpjp:
<strong>

For all practical purposes, the introduction of the updated G4 and of PPC970 will split the present quad-tiered desktop program into something more confusing... much like the i-/PowerBook has been.

And NOT that early...

engpjp</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure about the confusion, but I was told FALL, that's not early to me, it's my INFO.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #82 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Guartho:
<strong>Does anyone know off the top of their head what wattages the current notebook processors pull? I'd look it up, but I'm lazy and on my way to class.</strong><hr></blockquote>

According to IBM's spec sheet the G3 750FX uses 3.6 watts @800MHz. That's why the iBooks have great battery life.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
post #83 of 200
redkid is the source that told you fall reliable. Would you bet good money on it? I'm just trying to get a feel as to how sure you are about this fall thing. And since the 970 at 1.2ghz is rather cool running chip would we not see 970 Powerbooks at or around the same time. I don't believe we are going to have a 2 year wait to get a 970 powerbook like we did the G4 powerbook.
"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 #84 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by neutrino23:
<strong>

According to IBM's spec sheet the G3 750FX uses 3.6 watts @800MHz. That's why the iBooks have great battery life.</strong><hr></blockquote>

methinks Motorola should contract w/ IBM to produce the MPC7455 on their 0.13µm process...end of rant


edit oops, there is no MPC7555, <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
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 #85 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I don't know... the IBM presentation was pretty clear that the bus speed is half the processor speed. Period. The other documents I've seen do nothing to dissuade me from this notion. Its also a significantly different bus design than MPX, and the emphasis is clearly on high bandwidth. Since there is no L3 cache support my suspicion is that they aren't interested in being able to cripple the processor's FSB.

Its worth pointing out that the FSB is just a connection from processor(s) to the companion chip, and this will likely be a tightly controlled link of minimal length. Combined with its high clock rate this would tend to make me think that the companion chip will sit on a high quality daughtercard with the processor(s). It remains to be seen where the memory sits, and how the connection to the southbridge on the motherboard is done. In this kind of a setup Apple might be able to support very high clock rates on the FSB (i.e. &gt;1 GHz).</strong><hr></blockquote>

The front side bus works at integer dividers of the clock frequency, and is double pumped, the 1.8GHz has a 4:1 divider, giving 900MHz effective data rate.

see <a href="http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?AID=RWT101502203725&p=2" target="_blank">David Wang's article</a>

The bus is also wave-pipelined, which means that more than one bit of data can be on the line at once, so that line delays can be more than one cycle long. The bus is also unidirectional, which means you can put the next request on the bus without having to wait for the bus to turn around and send the requested data back. The bus is actually well suited to long distances between the CPU and the companion chip. That being said, laying out the board would be easier, and latencies would be reduced, if the two were close.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #86 of 200
Err, yeah I was ignoring the double-pumped nature of the FSB just for simplicity and calling it 900 MHz as seems to be standard practice these days. So yes, the clock rate multiplier is actually 4:1.

I'd been refering to a 3rd party article about the 970 so I went back to the MDF presentation and checked... it doesn't talk about mulitpliers but it does say "Up to 900MHz bitrate". Hmmm, I guess it does support slower buses. I really hope this is not an option Apple chooses to use.

My supposition about a small daughtercard arrangement is just speculation based on the idea that PCBs for 900 MHz buses are expensive, and this is the portion that will differ between single, dual, and quad processor machines. If all that will live on these cards is the processor(s) and companion chip, then they can be very small to minimize cost and latency. The connection to the main motherboard will be interesting as it will probably have to carry both the southbridge connection and the memory bus... unless the memory lives on the daughtercard.

I can't wait to see these new machines, it'll be the first time in a while that Apple really has had a chance to innovate on the motherboard. Hopefully they do it well.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #87 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong> it doesn't talk about mulitpliers but it does say "Up to 900MHz bitrate". Hmmm, I guess it does support slower buses. I really hope this is not an option Apple chooses to use.</strong><hr></blockquote>They're probably just referring to the slower FSB speeds for the slower processors (&lt;1.8Ghz).
post #88 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>They're probably just referring to the slower FSB speeds for the slower processors (&lt;1.8Ghz).</strong><hr></blockquote>

That had been my original thought, but the implication from the people quoting Mr Wang's article is otherwise. Unfortunately I can't get to that article at the moment for some reason.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #89 of 200
I was curious if they could implement a 5:1 ratio. This would allow a 2.25GHz Machine to still retain it's 900MHz bus while being more flexible with configurations. While 1GHz buses are not out of the question, it may have obstacles we are not away of.
post #90 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>....If all that will live on these cards is the processor(s) and companion chip, then they can be very small to minimize cost and latency.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

After reading the Ars Technica article and some of the information available on the web, I'm still confused over what exactly the "companion chip" does. I would have thought it was some kind of controller chip?? Or is it just some kind of interface to be connected to the controller chips, if so what other possible uses beyond just communication could/would be included on the companion chip(re: odd name)

[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
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 #91 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>After reading the Ars Technica article and some of the information available on the web, I'm still confused over what exactly the "companion chip" does. I would have thought it was some kind of controller chip?? Or is it just some kind of interface to be connected to the controller chips, if so what other possible uses beyond just communication could/would be included on the companion chip(re: some odd name)</strong><hr></blockquote>

The companion chip is just the thing on the opposite end of the FSB. Given Apple's typical tightly integrated designs I would guess that we'll see their companion chip having 2-4 FSB ports, a memory controller, and some kind of a connection to the southbridge on the motherboard. This means "companion chip == northbridge".
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #92 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>redkid is the source that told you fall reliable. Would you bet good money on it? I'm just trying to get a feel as to how sure you are about this fall thing. And since the 970 at 1.2ghz is rather cool running chip would we not see 970 Powerbooks at or around the same time. I don't believe we are going to have a 2 year wait to get a 970 powerbook like we did the G4 powerbook.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hard to say exactly. I feel good about it. I was told about an IBM chip replacing moto released in the fall of 2003 last year before IBM announced anything. So the source was right about a lot of things and when the press release said 2H of 2003 and other sources have said the fall, I just feel strongly about it based on circumstances not more evidence.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #93 of 200
Programmer

Thanks, I just started wondering because I had never heard the name companion chip before, causing wild unfounded speculation racing through my head concerning other possible functions that may be rolled into the companion chip.
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 #94 of 200
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
This means "companion chip == northbridge".</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then Uninorth, then U2, and then with the 970...

Oh, and other than a few supprises, Programmer has the content of the chip pretty close.
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
post #95 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>

Then Uninorth, then U2, and then with the 970...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I must be dense, I do not understand your post. Could you explain it for me? Bear in mind I have very very little technical knowledge.
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 #96 of 200
Slow-tech folks, like myself, might find <a href="http://www.cpuplanet.com/features/article.php/1490831" target="_blank">this article</a> about basic motherboard layout informative.

[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: Ompus ]</p>
Apple's I've owned: AppleTV2; Ipad2; Iphone4; Iphone3; 13" 2010 MBP; 13" CoreDuo MB; 14" iBook (1 Ghz g4); Powerbase 240; PB 5300; Newton; PB 800; Mac LC; Mac plus; Mac 512; Apple II+.
Reply
Apple's I've owned: AppleTV2; Ipad2; Iphone4; Iphone3; 13" 2010 MBP; 13" CoreDuo MB; 14" iBook (1 Ghz g4); Powerbase 240; PB 5300; Newton; PB 800; Mac LC; Mac plus; Mac 512; Apple II+.
Reply
post #97 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Ompus:
<strong>Slow-tech folks, like myself, might find <a href="http://www.cpuplanet.com/features/article.php/1490831" target="_blank">this article</a> about basic motherboard layout informative.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okey Dokey. I thought I had a rudimentary understanding of the cpu - northbridge - southbridge layout, but what the heck. I read the article you linked to, twice, very nice article. Thank you.

But regretably no mention of Uninorth nor U2(re: nice band, used to listen to them in the 80's) I believe Apple computers use a bridge chip called Uninorth, right. But what's U2?? A chip for USB 2.0???
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 #98 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>

Then Uninorth, then U2, and then with the 970...

Oh, and other than a few supprises, Programmer has the content of the chip pretty close.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It'll also have a DMA engine and perhaps the DSP-like features that were talked about last year. We can hope for a direct AGP 8x port as well. Is this what you are refering to TO?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #99 of 200
It'll also have a DMA engine and perhaps the DSP-like features that were talked about last year. We can hope for a direct AGP 8x port as well. Is this what you are refering to TO?[/QB][/QUOTE]
___________________________________________

Did you know that the AGP 8X spec provides for a *second* AGP 8X slot? Interesting possibilities.
post #100 of 200
Forgive me if this has been asked and answered, but what is the shortest time between upgrades that Apple has ever done?

Apple just updated the powermacs, but I can't imagine that they wouldn't use the 970 as soon as it was available. At least by putting it in the high end only.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #101 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>Forgive me if this has been asked and answered, but what is the shortest time between upgrades that Apple has ever done?

Apple just updated the powermacs, but I can't imagine that they wouldn't use the 970 as soon as it was available. At least by putting it in the high end only.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Upgrade cycle on PM usually is around 6-8 months.
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #102 of 200
...seems iteresting that while the 970 is garnering the lion's share of attention, the fact that a 1.42GHz G4 came out on a 180nm process has escaped mention.

Additonally, just last summer, Philips, Motorola, and STMicroelecronics announced they were preparing a facility capable of churning out 90 nanometer microprocessors on 300mm silicon....by the end of 2002. So if preproduction silicon is coming out by the end of 2002, whats keeping Moto from introducing a 2+GHz G4 on a 90nm process 2Q '03?

Just some thoughts. Any opinions on it?
post #103 of 200
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
[QB]Forgive me if this has been asked and answered, but what is the shortest time between upgrades that Apple has ever done?
[QB]<hr></blockquote>

I think that the PM G4 came only three months or so of the BW PM G3. <a href="http://www.apple-history.com" target="_blank">www.apple-history.com</a> is slower than dirt right now, or I'd check for sure.

[quote] It'll also have a DMA engine and perhaps the DSP-like features that were talked about last year. We can hope for a direct AGP 8x port as well. Is this what you are refering to TO? <hr></blockquote>

Well, those wouldn't be suprises, would they? Well, maybe the DSP.
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
post #104 of 200
The Wallstreet PDQ series was rushed out within three months of the Wallstreet. I think that's a record. It wasn't an Earth-shattering upgrade, but it was needed.

[quote]Originally posted by mooseman:
<strong>...seems iteresting that while the 970 is garnering the lion's share of attention, the fact that a 1.42GHz G4 came out on a 180nm process has escaped mention.

Additonally, just last summer, Philips, Motorola, and STMicroelecronics announced they were preparing a facility capable of churning out 90 nanometer microprocessors on 300mm silicon....by the end of 2002. So if preproduction silicon is coming out by the end of 2002, whats keeping Moto from introducing a 2+GHz G4 on a 90nm process 2Q '03?

Just some thoughts. Any opinions on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've been talking about that for a while now. The STM facility in Grenoble is a potential ace in the hole for Mot. They've said that since the issues involved in designing for .13&mu; and .09&mu; are essentially the same, they might as well leap all the way down to .09&mu;. Since it's not their fab, it shouldn't have the problems that their own .13&mu; facility has been having due to draconian cost-cutting measures.

If Mot actually pulls this off this year, they'll suddenly have an attractive little chip. Perfect for iBooks. And if they feel like bringing back the ballyhooed Eleven on that process, it might suddenly run cool enough not to explode in Apple's test mules. I'm not expecting an answer to the 970 out of Mot any time soon, though, but I wouldn't turn down a tiny little G4 on a really fast MaxBus.

But this line of discussion is more appropriate for the 7447/7457 thread next door.

[ 02-04-2003: 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 #105 of 200
Well, with IBM getting into the desktop market MOT may be changing their tune with respect to processor design. They may be worried that IBM will make them look bad in the embedded market. Lets hope for some good-ol' Intel/AMD battling on the CPU front. Bragging rights sometimes drive markets

Apple (and, therefore, we) have nothing to lose.

[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>
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 #106 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by mooseman:
<strong>...seems iteresting that while the 970 is garnering the lion's share of attention, the fact that a 1.42GHz G4 came out on a 180nm process has escaped mention.

Additonally, just last summer, Philips, Motorola, and STMicroelecronics announced they were preparing a facility capable of churning out 90 nanometer microprocessors on 300mm silicon....by the end of 2002. So if preproduction silicon is coming out by the end of 2002, whats keeping Moto from introducing a 2+GHz G4 on a 90nm process 2Q '03?

Just some thoughts. Any opinions on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Make it 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 500 GHz...

if they don't change the FSB, who cares.

[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: boots ]</p>
post #107 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by boots:
<strong>

Make it 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 500 GHz...

if they don't change the FSB, who cares.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


You're saying you wouldn't take a 5 watt 1.5 GHz G4+ w/ 512K L2 cache? The FSB is important folks, but its not everything. And the 7457-RM is always a possibility for early 2004 according to Moto's roadmap.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #108 of 200
Faster G4s are kind of good as it means faster Macs and faster upgrades. But as far as desktop CPUs the G4 is dead end and speed boosts only extend the lenght of the dead end. Sure a 2 GHz G4 in a powerbook would be fantastic but given Motorolas track record the last 10 years, is it likely that they will do that in a resonable time frame?
post #109 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
You're saying you wouldn't take a 5 watt 1.5 GHz G4+ w/ 512K L2 cache? The FSB is important folks, but its not everything. And the 7457-RM is always a possibility for early 2004 according to Moto's roadmap.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know about boots, but I wouldn't. Really, the CPU has been fast enough for me for a while now. What I can't stand is the overall system architecture. slow disks, slow FSB, slow memory, slow PCI, slow AGP, mediocre built-in sound.

I'm a big fan of fast and wide.

having said that I don't think my B&W can hold out much longer. As soon as the 9700 Pro becomes available I'll pick up a new machine and then sell it when something I like comes out.
post #110 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by mooseman:
...Additonally, just last summer, Philips, Motorola, and STMicroelecronics announced they were preparing a facility capable of churning out 90 nanometer microprocessors on 300mm silicon....by the end of 2002. So if preproduction silicon is coming out by the end of 2002, whats keeping Moto from introducing a 2+GHz G4 on a 90nm process 2Q '03?

...Any opinions on it?<hr></blockquote>

I remember those press releases. I personally got excited. They mentioned something like high end processors ?? manufactured by the end of 2002.

My opinion now, press release bologna. Suprise me Motorola, let's have another press release announcing ANYTHING is being manufactured using a 0.09µm process - ANYTHING AT ALL.


edit: originally wrote 0.9µm process above. Ha, I actually showed Motorola going backwards.

[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
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 #111 of 200
It's clear that next year the whole range will be unrecognisable in terms of performance, and these boards will go quite quiet. However in the mean time...

I think that we are not seeing the real performane of the current processors because of the bottlekneck caused by the FSB. If we can get a decent FSB then the performance on current machines and processors will leap.

I doubt that Moto would make the current processors on the 0.09 process, I am sure they are fully aware of the shortcommings too. Any move to 0.09 would be accompanied with a revised FSB.
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 #112 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>It's clear that next year the whole range will be unrecognisable in terms of performance, and these boards will go quite quiet. However in the mean time...

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you saying that we won't find anything to bitch about? Is that some sort of challenge?

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #113 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Bancho:
<strong>

Are you saying that we won't find anything to bitch about? Is that some sort of challenge?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well what's wrong with being an optimist.
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 #114 of 200
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Watch what happens if Apple releases these 970 mahines and it turns out they are several orders of magnitude faster than todays machines. There will be a banshee wail of screaming/bitching/moaning that Apple has screwed us all again by making our current machines look pathetic in comparison. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I for one am quite eager to see what pops up next but in the meantime I may just have to get the wifey one of those new 17" iMacs to replace her old reliable Rev. A iMac.
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #115 of 200
The aluring siren songs about the bus speed.
That mantra about that slow bus speed throttling the G4 is everywere but were is the evidence for this?

Can anyone show that a dual 1.2 GHz G4 on a G4/400 (with a 100 MHz bus) is much slower CPU wise than a dual 1.25 with a halfway DDR bus at 167 MHz?

According to xlr8yourmac test of dual 1GHz CPUs with 133 and DDR167 the differecen between them is 10% or less even if the DDR is at least 25% faster in the bus speed.

I would guess that a dual 1.42 GHz G4 could saturate the 30 MHz bus on a PM 6100. However, I have yet to see any evidence that the main problem of the G4 is slow bus speed. The fact that that it is a common opinion does not make it true <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
post #116 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>The aluring siren songs about the bus speed.
That mantra about that slow bus speed throttling the G4 is everywere but were is the evidence for this?....The fact that that it is a common opinion does not make it true <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

There's a variety of computationally-bound programs designed to take full advantage of multiprocessing that see a miserable speedup going from a single 1GHz G4 to a dual 1GHz G4. That in itself doesn't prove anything - but when the same program sees almost the complete doubling when going from a 500MHz G4 to a dual 500MHz dual.... Strongly indicates that the second G4 isn't doing so much _in_some_cases.

A second important note is that the two G4's share a single bus -&gt; there's conflict there. And it makes a Quad insane. There wouldn't be any screaming about price/performance if there was a real bus + quads available (on the high end, there'd still be millions screaming for a $500 box).

You can calculate the 'max' data consumption rate, it is something like 10x the FSB max throughput, way out of whack. It isn't crippling... in an _single_ CPU situation.
post #117 of 200
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pmddr.html" target="_blank">FWIW</a>
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 #118 of 200
[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>


A second important note is that the two G4's share a single bus -&gt; there's conflict there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Please forgive my ignorance, but this brings up a question for me. How are the duals connected to the FSB? As I understand it, they are connected in such a way that the FSB is part of Motos fab, and Apple cannot change the bus. This led me to assume the FSB was part of the G4 cpu, and that Duals would have two busses? And, if the FSB is not on the cpu but rather on the chipset, what about the design has made, altering it too expensive?
post #119 of 200
Ok, I assume that the 970 is going to be the next processor for Apple. But here is the rumor I don't get:

"They are working on software so that 2 processors will work seamlessly like 1." If that is true, then why wouldn't they have just asked IBM to make an actual (dual core) Power4 with the Altivec unit???

What is the probability that they will even debut with ANY dualies? I realize their are some gains by using multiple processors, but I would think prices will be fairly high in the beginning when yields of this new processor are low.

Those 2 issues alone make me doubt a lot of the talk that is going on about the 970. Especially when people start spouting off saying "I know a guy who knows a guy that was working on x, y, and z for the dual 970 ..."

I would love something that resembles a fact about the whole situation, but until I see it otherwise I will assume any 970 based mac debuts as a single processor. And I would think that is a tricky situation when you debut a "best" system with a single 1.8 Ghz 970 system next to a dual 1.42 Ghz G4 at "better". At least for the marketing department.
post #120 of 200
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › 970 Production info