or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Is IBM fabbing slower clocked 970's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is IBM fabbing slower clocked 970's?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
IIRC, the specs on the 970 said speeds from 1.2 - 2.8Ghz. Is IBM manufacturing 1.2 and/or 1.4Ghz chips? Would a 970 at those lower speeds run cool enough to put into a PB or an iMac/eMac? I would think even a 1.2Ghz 970 would cream any single processor G4 that Mot can occasionally belch out...
post #2 of 29
I don't think that the eMac needs a G5. Or the iMac for that matter. We all remember how long it took the G4 to replace the G3 in the iMac, I think it will take that long for the G5 to replace the G4 in the iMac, but the eMac will stay G4(along with the iBook) for a while.

Also, I don't think that the G5 could easily be placed in an iMac, even at 1.2GHz.
post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Is IBM manufacturing 1.2 and/or 1.4Ghz chips?

They do, but not by choice. If a chip runs stable at a certain frequency during testing it will be certified as a 2 GHz G5, or only 1.8, 1.6, 1.4... by and large.
post #4 of 29
Whether IBM is making the lower speed chips, I cannot say...I certainly wish they would IF chips of 1.4 and lower speeds could compete in heat and power specs with the G4 currently in the eMac, iMac, and PowerBooks.

Whether they do compete or not, there's no hard specs available. But IF a 1.0 to 1.4 GHz PPC 970 was approximate in cost, heat, and power requirements to the G4s in the above mentioned machines, Apple would be foolish to not get them into the eMac/iMac/PowerBooks ASAP.

To say the eMac/iMac doesn't "need" a G5 may be true. Anyone outside of media development or the medical field doesn't "need" a G5 ... that isn't going to stop tons of teens from trying to convince their parents they need a G5 for word processing and game playing. The "mine's bigger than yours" factor will always win.

The sooner Apple gets G5 chips across the entire product line, the sooner Intel needs to worry. Even if the G5 is up to par with Intel's best machines, that means nothing until it's in a machine in the eMac/iMac range priced for the masses. $2000 minimum for a G5 isn't going to scare Intel. G5 chips in machines from $999 and up will.

And as I've said many times on other forums, it is NOT going to take years for the G5 transition like the G4 did. Any machine from Apple without a G5 chip by January 2005 might as well be discontinued. 18 months or less. That is my prediction, and Apple's only way to start taking back the market. The .09 process G5s should make that goal completely possible.

-- Ensoniq
post #5 of 29
When discussing slower chips we could be talking about two different things. Taking a chip rated at 1.2 GHz and running at 1.2 GHz, it may dissipate say 28 Watts. However, by taking a chip rated at 1.8 GHz and running at 1.2 GHz, it will only dissipate say 19 Watts, because the supply voltage can be lower. The rule of thumb is that a chip is rated at a particular clock speed when operating at normal supply voltage. If a chip is then run at two thirds of it rated frequency, it can operate at the minimum supply voltage. These figures are based on IBM's early remarks about power, so the real numbers today will be a little different.

Back then, a 1.8 GHz 970 was said to dissipate about 42 Watts running at the normal supply voltage. At minimum supply voltage, we can run this same part at 1.2 GHz and it dissipates 19 Watts. That was IBM's estimate. The 28 Watts above is based on scaling power with clock rate, and keeping normal supply voltage.
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus
IIRC, the specs on the 970 said speeds from 1.2 - 2.8Ghz. Is IBM manufacturing 1.2 and/or 1.4Ghz chips? Would a 970 at those lower speeds run cool enough to put into a PB or an iMac/eMac? I would think even a 1.2Ghz 970 would cream any single processor G4 that Mot can occasionally belch out...

I think Apple has already spent money on a few hundred thousand motherboards for the new MOTO G4. I sure apple was expecting the chips in volume by May/June, but MOTO F**KED Apple again .

Apple is most likely waiting or has the samples of the 90 micron 970 for final PB testing. My guess is that updated PB's were due by June(WWDC) or July(MWNY). With Apple Planning to Announce G5 PB's early in 2004. The fact that MOTO has droped the ball again will not effect Apple plan release of the PB G5 on schedule(when ever that is?)
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus
IIRC, the specs on the 970 said speeds from 1.2 - 2.8Ghz. Is IBM manufacturing 1.2 and/or 1.4Ghz chips? Would a 970 at those lower speeds run cool enough to put into a PB or an iMac/eMac? I would think even a 1.2Ghz 970 would cream any single processor G4 that Mot can occasionally belch out...

Most likely they have some chips coming off the line that only meet the minmal specs.

It is very well possible that the chip itself may run cool enough. Do relaize though that the 970 is only part of a chip set to make a computer. The rest of the chip set will have to run at a reasonable power disapation point.

There are many issues that come into play as far as processor pefromance goes. There is no reason to believe that at these low clock rates the 970 would not trash the G4. In fact there is every reason to believe that the G4 would give the 970 a run for its life. This would especially be the case if it was clocked slightly faster than the 970.

The reality is that the 970 needs to make it into Apples other products as fast as possible. If for nothing else to remove motorola from the picture. There are good reasons to have a 970 in the iLamps and other consumer machines, but not at 1.2 GHz, the minmal should be 1.5 GHz. One issue is compatibility with the 970 extensions to Panther in cluding large memory systems.

All that bieng said it does not appear that Apple originally intended to go with the 970 in the low end. It does appear that they are being pushed in that direction. In the end I do believe that Apple needs to fully adopt the 970 ASAP.


Dave
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
When discussing slower chips we could be talking about two different things. Taking a chip rated at 1.2 GHz and running at 1.2 GHz, it may dissipate say 28 Watts. However, by taking a chip rated at 1.8 GHz and running at 1.2 GHz, it will only dissipate say 19 Watts, because the supply voltage can be lower. The rule of thumb is that a chip is rated at a particular clock speed when operating at normal supply voltage. If a chip is then run at two thirds of it rated frequency, it can operate at the minimum supply voltage. These figures are based on IBM's early remarks about power, so the real numbers today will be a little different.

Back then, a 1.8 GHz 970 was said to dissipate about 42 Watts running at the normal supply voltage. At minimum supply voltage, we can run this same part at 1.2 GHz and it dissipates 19 Watts. That was IBM's estimate. The 28 Watts above is based on scaling power with clock rate, and keeping normal supply voltage.

Your right snoopy, the data for the 1.8G @ 1.1V running @ 1.2G is about 19W, did you hear Apple is overstocked with 1.8G 970's because 'duh' the DP2GHz is getting 50% of the pre-orders. Now if only Apple could use these spare 1.8's in PB's!, Um, please!
post #9 of 29
Since it looks like IBM will be selling the 970 in the embedded market, I would hazard guess and say that they are. They could steal a lot of sales away from Motorola if they fab 1.1V 1 to 1.3 GHz 970 CPUs and sell them for $50 to $200. They may be waiting on a 3rd party to create a core logic and I/O chipset for it.
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Do relaize though that the 970 is only part of a chip set to make a computer. The rest of the chip set will have to run at a reasonable power disapation point.

Quite correct. This is a point that people never seem to remember. There is more to a machine than its CPU. Quite a bit more.

Quote:
There are many issues that come into play as far as processor pefromance goes. There is no reason to believe that at these low clock rates the 970 would not trash the G4. In fact there is every reason to believe that the G4 would give the 970 a run for its life. This would especially be the case if it was clocked slightly faster than the 970.

The advantage of a lower clocked G5 wouldn't be so much in the raw CPU performance (although a 1.2 G5 would kill a 1.3 G4 in FPU tasks), so much as it would be an advantage in the rest of the system, specifically the FSB. A G5 at 1.2 GHz could have a FSB running at 300, 400, or 600 MHz, and this would give a definite performance advantage over a G4. So where the CPU's would be mostly even, the overall G5 system would beat the stuffing out of a G4. Indeed, the poor mobo is what holds some of my friends back from buying the current laptops. The G4 isn't a bad laptop chip- it is a bad laptop chip only in that it has a miserable FSB.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by hasapi
Your right snoopy, the data for the 1.8G @ 1.1V running @ 1.2G is about 19W, did you hear Apple is overstocked with 1.8G 970's because 'duh' the DP2GHz is getting 50% of the pre-orders. Now if only Apple could use these spare 1.8's in PB's!, Um, please!

A 42W laptop??? Are you mad, or do you work in the arctic?
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #12 of 29
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #13 of 29
You must admit that hasapi's post was a bit confusing.

What he means is a chip rated for 1.8GHz downclocked to 1.2GHz with a decrease in core voltage.

19W, not 42W.

post #14 of 29
You also have to remember that IBM guesses at best what speed each batch of chips will run at. If they test ok at 2.0 then their 2's, 1.8 then 1.8's etc. Another thing to consider is that the 970 is stiil at .09 microns and when they reach the .07 micron mark here in the next few months they will be able to put the L1 cache to a full 1 MB which will also have Intel and Sunn at bey. As for the iMac eMac and iBook and Powerbook, they will all get G5's in due time, but first apple will have to use the remaining G4's which are supposed to go all the way to the 2 GHZ mark by the end of the year. the 1.5 GHZ PowerBook G4 is already in development and so is the 1.2 GHZ iBook and iMac.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Norman Terry
Another thing to consider is that the 970 is stiil at .09 microns and when they reach the .07 micron mark here in the next few months they will be able to put the L1 cache to a full 1 MB which will also have Intel and Sunn at bey.

The 970 is 130nm right now, champ. IBM isn't producing 90nm 970's yet, so there sure as hell won't be any 70nm chips for a while.


Quote:
Originally posted by Norman Terry
The 1.5 GHZ PowerBook G4 is already in development and so is the 1.2 GHZ iBook and iMac.

How do you know this?
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Norman Terry
You also have to remember that IBM guesses at best what speed each batch of chips will run at. If they test ok at 2.0 then their 2's, 1.8 then 1.8's etc. Another thing to consider is that the 970 is stiil at .09 microns and when they reach the .07 micron mark here in the next few months they will be able to put the L1 cache to a full 1 MB which will also have Intel and Sunn at bey. As for the iMac eMac and iBook and Powerbook, they will all get G5's in due time, but first apple will have to use the remaining G4's which are supposed to go all the way to the 2 GHZ mark by the end of the year. the 1.5 GHZ PowerBook G4 is already in development and so is the 1.2 GHZ iBook and iMac.

Lemme see:

1. 2 posts? Check.

2. No clue about current or future fab processes? Check.

3. Massive grammatical and spelling errors? Check.

Yep, it's a true insider with knowledge of Apple's secret product roadmap.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #17 of 29
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=121
Sorry about my spelling, And the 970 2GHZ and higher chips were supposed to be at .09. Thanks.
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Norman Terry
You also have to remember that IBM guesses at best what speed each batch of chips will run at. If they test ok at 2.0 then their 2's, 1.8 then 1.8's etc. Another thing to consider is that the 970 is stiil at .09 microns and when they reach the .07 micron mark here in the next few months they will be able to put the L1 cache to a full 1 MB which will also have Intel and Sunn at bey. As for the iMac eMac and iBook and Powerbook, they will all get G5's in due time, but first apple will have to use the remaining G4's which are supposed to go all the way to the 2 GHZ mark by the end of the year. the 1.5 GHZ PowerBook G4 is already in development and so is the 1.2 GHZ iBook and iMac.

Why would Apple need to use chips that they havent developed computer for, or purchased? As of today, the G4 maxes out at 1.4 Ghz for the 7455. I would Assume that Apple may have some of these chips on hand still, and might want to use them, but they could as easily liquidate the remaining stock of PM's with them.

As far as future G4's, the 7457 is rumoured to be about ready, just working up the fab process. According to PowerLogix this chip will have speeds of up to 1.6 Ghz when launched. Since they are developing a Dual 1.6 daughter card that they plan to release for the Cube I dont think heat will be an issue with these chips in the iMac using a single processor. Since PowerLogix has sample chips on hand I would assume that Apple has them as well.

See post by powerlogix
Quote:
Following up my earlier post:

According to our inhouse testing, here is what we have found:

When comparing power dissipation between 1.4g 7455 and 1.4g 7457 during a CD RIP
in iTunes, the 7455 shows an additional 31.5 watt demand. Extraordinary.

For system idle in OS X, it measures 11.4 watts more.

Quake (comparing 1.2 gig 7455 to 1.2 gig 7457): 28 watts more for the 7455.

It would be a bad marketing move for Apple to stick with a 1.2 model iMac for the next revision if the 7457's were available at speeds up to 1.6, and these were released as upgrades for previous G4 computers. they would get eaten alive in the press and on the boards. Apple might be able to entice Cube and iMac owners to upgrade with a good speed boost with a top end 1.6 G4 but a 1.2 is not signifigant enough of a boost to get a lot of people excited enough about the new model to say "I need to upgrade now."
post #19 of 29
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #20 of 29
The 970's came from the Power 4 correct ??? Oh yeah .09.
post #21 of 29
More like 130nm...you do know that Fishkill has net to transition to 90nm as of yet, correct? IBM is open about that publicly...

All of Apple's current G5 Power Macs feature 130nm parts.
post #22 of 29
Norman Terry: That the parts Apple's using now are 130nm tech is common knowledge. Who've gotten you into the idea that they're 90nm? Any source?
post #23 of 29
I think what he isn't getting is that the original 1.8GHz on 130nm was a conservative estimate. He probably heard way back, almost a year ago, that IBM would quickly transition to 90nm after the initial launch. What he doesn't know is that 2.0GHz is the new 1.8GHz, mostly because he's probably been sitting under a rock for the past six months. Not good when you are trying to fake inside information.

post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by @homenow
It would be a bad marketing move for Apple to stick with a 1.2 model iMac for the next revision if the 7457's were available at speeds up to 1.6, and these were released as upgrades for previous G4 computers. they would get eaten alive in the press and on the boards. Apple might be able to entice Cube and iMac owners to upgrade with a good speed boost with a top end 1.6 G4 but a 1.2 is not signifigant enough of a boost to get a lot of people excited enough about the new model to say "I need to upgrade now."

I hope the info about 7457's running @ 1.6G is accurate. I indeed think its important that we get that sort of update into the iMacs/PowerBooks, i agree that a 1.2G update would be pathetic.

I suspect any desire to get G5's into the PB's whilst possible is now unlikely until maybe MWSF in Jan 04.
post #25 of 29
Again I am referring to the 2.0's and higher that was mentioned almost a year ago. I have been under a rock for the past six months but I am slowly re-emerging. Thanks for your concern though. Does anyone know if Fishkill will be producing the .09's or is IBM going to move the operation for the new chips.
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Norman Terry
Again I am referring to the 2.0's and higher that was mentioned almost a year ago. I have been under a rock for the past six months but I am slowly re-emerging. Thanks for your concern though. Does anyone know if Fishkill will be producing the .09's or is IBM going to move the operation for the new chips.

Almost a year ago IBM thought all they would get out of the 130nm process was 1.8GHz. They got 2.0GHz. They were estimating back then, and you accept that as the one and only unchangeable truth? It's been a whole damn year, man. Estimates are never precise. Your information is no longer correct.

post #27 of 29
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #28 of 29
Apple still plans on releasing the 2.0Ghz+ still yet this year, right?

Even though that maybe true, I'm still going to make the first rev. my computer for the next 4-5 years. Because Apple is that far ahead of the competition, the G5 looks like it's longevity in speed is the greatest selling point to any customer.

Oh ya, what's fishkill...going to look it up.
-walloo.
WILLYWALLOO'S: MostlyMacly: Rumors. Read about the timeline beyond our time.
PENFIFTEENPRODUCTIONS: We like what we do.
Reply
WILLYWALLOO'S: MostlyMacly: Rumors. Read about the timeline beyond our time.
PENFIFTEENPRODUCTIONS: We like what we do.
Reply
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by willywalloo
Oh ya, what's fishkill...going to look it up.

Fishkill is IBM's old plant in Fishkill, New York that was gutted and renovated to become their most high-tech fab, and also a research lab and design house. It's where the 970 is being fabbed.
"...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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Is IBM fabbing slower clocked 970's?