or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New G5 chips? 4 flavors: 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.6GHz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New G5 chips? 4 flavors: 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.6GHz - Page 3

post #81 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
stingerman,

I owe you a sincere public apology for the way you have been dragged into a futile discussion. I have always appreciate your postings and have learned something on many occasions. You seem to keep well informed about computers, which is my interest in reading these forums. So, after you made the above statement, I realize you know a lot, but electrical network analysis is not your forte. It appears you had a basic misunderstanding when you wrote that post, and you may like to know about it. I certainly would if it were me.

After reading this board for a long time, I must take a moment to thank you for your decorum and respectful post. I don't know if it is just the holiday season or what... but I, for one, appreciate your kind and tactful approach to expressing your views.

"Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly
endless. - Mother Theresa"

Kudos to you. 8)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #82 of 118
Quote:
We'll see 3GHz when IBM produces 3GHz CPUs in quantity, not sooner. I think it's pretty clear from the G5 introduction keynote that Steve loves blowing the competition away, and I don't see how he'll turn down an opportunity to remove as much ambiguity around that claim as possible. If the hardcore PC performance writers extolled the top-end PowerMac as the machine to beat, period, Apple would gain credibility they haven't had in about a decade

A fact born out by the PC Mag award for best computer and the extensive coverage in PC, Mac and Internet tech' press.

The G5 is a quality, world class, cutting edge product with untouchable design.

Remarkable. And it is only the beginning of a new generation...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
After reading this board for a long time, I must take a moment to thank you for your decorum and respectful post. I don't know if it is just the holiday season or what... but I, for one, appreciate your kind and tactful approach to expressing your views.

"Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly
endless. - Mother Theresa"

Kudos to you. 8)

i second that
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #84 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
The G5 is a quality, world class, cutting edge product with untouchable design.

Remarkable. And it is only the beginning of a new generation...

Phil Schiller couldn't have said it better himself.
Pismo, Deus Ex Machina.
Reply
Pismo, Deus Ex Machina.
Reply
post #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
A fact born out by the PC Mag award for best computer and the extensive coverage in PC, Mac and Internet tech' press.

The G5 is a quality, world class, cutting edge product with untouchable design.

Remarkable. And it is only the beginning of a new generation...

Lemon Bon Bon

A G5 is like Prozak.
Look what it did with the mind of LBB.
One G5 and he's writing marketing lyrics for Apple
post #86 of 118
Maybe he's been cloned....
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 #87 of 118
Quote:
Bigc

Say, I always wondered why the 'Bigc' has a little 'c' in his handle...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #88 of 118
Because I screwed up when I set up my account and just kept it that way for all of the ones I set up. Plus, adds to the confusion...
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 #89 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
stingerman,

I owe you a sincere public apology for the way you have been dragged into a futile discussion. I have always appreciate your postings and have learned something on many occasions. You seem to keep well informed about computers, which is my interest in reading these forums. So, after you made the above statement, I realize you know a lot, but electrical network analysis is not your forte. It appears you had a basic misunderstanding when you wrote that post, and you may like to know about it. I certainly would if it were me.

Unfortunately, your post became part of a debate here, so I think it is only fair for me to give you a much more complete answer than my original reply. You appear to simplify the processor as a "black box" to facilitate discussion. I find that to be a typical way engineers get cumbersome details out of the way so they can focus on simple issues. Otherwise, we are caught up in technicalities that don't get to the heart of the matter.

In this case, the black box is a collection of transistors, represented by connected resistors. It obeys a simple law, E = I x R, voltage is current times resistance. You appear to believe that adding transistors would increase resistance (R) and therefore the processor voltage (E) would need to be higher to supply the required current (I). This would be true if the resistors were in series, or connected in a daisy chain fashion. In fact, they are connected in parallel, each one going across the power supply terminals. In this case, total resistance is not the sum of the individual resistors.

A resistor has another characteristic that is called conductance, represented by G. It is equal to the reciprocal of resistance, G = 1 / R. In the case of parallel connect components, the total conductance (G) is equal to the sum of the individual elements. When you go through the math, you discover that with parallel connected components the resistance goes down when you add more parts. E = I x R still holds. So when R is less, and the supply voltage for the chip (E) stays the same, the current (I) increases, which increases power. Power = E x I.

I hope this is helpful. It is my interpretation of what you posted, although you may mean something entirely different that I don't see.

No need to apologize. This isn't exactly my field, I am a computer scientist not an electrical engineer. So reading the debate has been educational to me. That is the point of all this, isn't it? I think so. SO thanks to all of you who have kept the debate going, it has peaked my curiosity in this field.

As far as my statement goes, it was a generalization, but I can't take credit for it. My source was an IBM Engineer, a PHD actually, who wrote a research paper on dynamically changing voltage in order to reduce heat. He probably made the generalization for the sake of the general reader. I don't think anyone can argue that it was nothing more than a generalization and as everyone know generalizations always fail under scrutiny, but they do serve their purpose to to not get bogged down in the details for a non disciplined discussion.
post #90 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by stingerman
No need to apologize. This isn't exactly my field, I am a computer scientist not an electrical engineer. So reading the debate has been educational to me. That is the point of all this, isn't it? I think so. SO thanks to all of you who have kept the debate going, it has peaked my curiosity in this field.

As far as my statement goes, it was a generalization, but I can't take credit for it. My source was an IBM Engineer, a PHD actually, who wrote a research paper on dynamically changing voltage in order to reduce heat. He probably made the generalization for the sake of the general reader. I don't think anyone can argue that it was nothing more than a generalization and as everyone know generalizations always fail under scrutiny, but they do serve their purpose to to not get bogged down in the details for a non disciplined discussion.

cz rulz!! ee sucks!! kill all those electrical engineers.

if theres any dynamically chanign voltage, i would imagine it to be for individual cmos gates, etc, where transistors can be connected in series.for example , if u have a large fan in NAND gate, you are goign to get lots of NMOS in series so large eq resistance. if you have a low resistance gate with small as shit fan in, you can feed a lower voltage to it.
post #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
cz rulz!! ee sucks!! kill all those electrical engineers.

if theres any dynamically chanign voltage, i would imagine it to be for individual cmos gates, etc, where transistors can be connected in series.for example , if u have a large fan in NAND gate, you are goign to get lots of NMOS in series so large eq resistance. if you have a low resistance gate with small as shit fan in, you can feed a lower voltage to it.

Of course, but you're forgetting the quantum delineation coefficients.

(Sorry, all this stuff goes way over my head...)
post #92 of 118
I can't seem to find the original quote, but I came across this in my past research,

In the design of pipelined processors, the hardware in each stage is optimized by restructuring logic and tuning transistor sizes to meet the cycle requirement. The tighter the delay budget, the greater the parallelism required at the gate level and the larger the transistor sizes needed, which leads to higher power.

It is clear to me, however, that "the dynamic power consumed in a chip is the sum of the power of all switching nodes."

But, in the context of the original post I made, explain to me what causes heat to be generated from an engineers perspective. I want to make sure I understand it properly.
post #93 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by stingerman
I can't seem to find the original quote, but I came across this in my past research,

In the design of pipelined processors, the hardware in each stage is optimized by restructuring logic and tuning transistor sizes to meet the cycle requirement. The tighter the delay budget, the greater the parallelism required at the gate level and the larger the transistor sizes needed, which leads to higher power.

It is clear to me, however, that "the dynamic power consumed in a chip is the sum of the power of all switching nodes."

But, in the context of the original post I made, explain to me what causes heat to be generated from an engineers perspective. I want to make sure I understand it properly.

you answered your own question:
"the dynamic power consumed in a chip is the sum of the power of all switching node"
post #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by stingerman


. . . But, in the context of the original post I made, explain to me what causes heat to be generated from an engineers perspective. I want to make sure I understand it properly.


I suspect that mmicist knows more about this matter than any of us. I believe his succinct comment explains it very well.

"Nonetheless it is axiomatic that all power dissipation is resistive, how you analyse it depends on how much you know about the circuit and how it operates, but that is a different matter."

To expand a little, the mechanism that produces heat is current flowing through the resistive component of the transistors. However, to figure out what this heat will be, it is useful to calculate energy stored by these semiconductor switches. This energy is responsible for the heat producing current flow.
post #95 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
I suspect that mmicist know more about this matter than any of us. I believe his succinct comment explains it very well.

"Nonetheless it is axiomatic that all power dissipation is resistive, how you analyse it depends on how much you know about the circuit and how it operates, but that is a different matter."

To expand a little, the mechanism that produces heat is current flowing through the resistive component of the transistors. However, to figure out what this heat will be, it is useful to calculate energy stored by these semiconductor switches. This energy is responsible for the heat producing current flow.

heh. the engineer wouldnt care how the power is dissipated. engineer only want a model tat makes it easy to calculate the power dissipated.
post #96 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by stingerman
I can't seem to find the original quote, but I came across this in my past research,

In the design of pipelined processors, the hardware in each stage is optimized by restructuring logic and tuning transistor sizes to meet the cycle requirement. The tighter the delay budget, the greater the parallelism required at the gate level and the larger the transistor sizes needed, which leads to higher power.

It is clear to me, however, that "the dynamic power consumed in a chip is the sum of the power of all switching nodes."

But, in the context of the original post I made, explain to me what causes heat to be generated from an engineers perspective. I want to make sure I understand it properly.

Just how detailed an explanation do you want?

The simple version first then.

Important note) Capacitors do not themselves dissipate power (voltage and current are always out of phase). Only resistive elements can dissipate power.

For so-called dynamic power, consider the input of a (logic) gate being driven by some other circuit. First the input of the (logic) gate consists of the (control) gates of a number of transistors, which is an almost purely capacitive load. The input is controlled by a pair of transistors, one of which is connected to voltage high, and the other connected to voltage low. In the steady state one transistor is on, and the other is off.
When the logic switches the two driving transistors switch, and current flows on or off the capacitor through the newly on transistor. This current flows through the channel of the transistor, which is resistive, and hence dissipates power. However, the power dissipated is not directly controlled by the resistance, but by the capacitance, and the voltage range, which control the total charge moved around.
There is another element of dynamic power dissipated, which is becoming more important at shorter sizes, which is the current that flows through the two transistors whilst both are switching and there is a direct resistive path from high voltage to low voltage. It so happens that this current is approxiamtely proportional to the gate capacitances of the transistors, and is usually approximated by a fudge factor correction to the capacitance based calculation.

On top of this, and related to the original post, is that the voltage you need to use to make the transistors work properly depends on the size of the transistors, a shorter gate length means a lower voltage is required to achieve the electric field under the gate which will give velocity saturation of the carriers. This is complicated by the fact that the voltage must also be high enough to cope with the variation in threshold voltage of transistors (the input voltage at which the transistor switches from on to off or vice-versa) and current processes run at much higher voltages than would otherwise be necessary because there is considerable variation in threshold voltage accross a wafer or even a chip.

The original post mentioned that reducing the size of the transistors would increase the channel resistance, and hence require a higher voltage, leading to no reduction in power dissipation, but this doesn't take into account the simultaneous scaling of the capacitances etc., nor the fact that the resistance doesn't control the total charge moved around per state change, but just the current, (which controls the speed of switching). So that reducing the process size does reduce the power dissipated.

Much more interesting at very short gate lengths and thin gate dielectrics are the leakage currents which give rise to both dynamic and static power dissipation, and controlling these is probably the most difficult part of developing new processes.

The more complex version isn't really suited to this board, but ask if you want it.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #97 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
heh. the engineer wouldnt care how the power is dissipated. engineer only want a model tat makes it easy to calculate the power dissipated.

Some of we engineers are the ones who develop these models, and we need to know what is really happening. It is also important for all engineers to know the limitations of the models they use, so that can recognise the cases when they don't apply.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
Some of we engineers are the ones who develop these models, and we need to know what is really happening. It is also important for all engineers to know the limitations of the models they use, so that can recognise the cases when they don't apply.

michael

the majority of engineers just use the models and are given quantitative limits to the models.
post #99 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
the majority of engineers just use the models and are given quantitative limits to the models.

Thankfully the majority of engineers don't think like that. You aren't a graduate or ever going to be a particularly good engineer if you believe that. Any engineer past 2nd or 3rd year uni will be able to talk to you about the importance of understanding the assumptions and limitations a model is built on and why more complex models are necessary.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #100 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
if u have a large fan in NAND gate, you are goign to get lots of NMOS in series so large eq resistance. if you have a low resistance gate with small as shit fan in, you can feed a lower voltage to it.

They put little FANS on the processor??

No wonder they use so much power!

-- Mark

(P.S. yes, i'm kidding)
Mark R. Wilkins
Author of MEL Scripting for Maya Animators
Reply
Mark R. Wilkins
Author of MEL Scripting for Maya Animators
Reply
post #101 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
This is complicated by the fact that the voltage must also be high enough to cope with the variation in threshold voltage of transistors (the input voltage at which the transistor switches from on to off or vice-versa) and current processes run at much higher voltages than would otherwise be necessary because there is considerable variation in threshold voltage accross a wafer or even a chip.

Ok, it is making more sense. Now, regarding the statement of yours I quoted above, IBM seems to have a solution for. They developed a technique they call "Voltage Islands" within a chip design such that the chips internals are divided into sections based on their voltage needs. This way maybe the core processor will be at 1.2V and the FPU will be at 1V and if there is a UART it can be at less than 1V, etc. The numbers are only for illustrative purposes. Am I understanding this correctly? The way I read IBM's research paper, IBM is basically designing a chip to mimic a Motherboard design but eliminating much of the expensive off chip communications, basically a SOC. In addition, they are able to dynamically adjust the voltage based on frequency adjustments giving them a quadratic decrease in power as well as heat. Am I making sense? Do I understand this correctly?
post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
the majority of engineers just use the models and are given quantitative limits to the models.

No, that would be technicians.

michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
No, that would be technicians.

michael

so what models have you developed?
post #104 of 118
Nr9, you were alot more palatable when you were just giving 'inside info'. Now you're seemingly defensive, and not very friendly. Stop it.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #105 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by 709
Nr9, you were alot more palatable when you were just giving 'inside info'. Now you're seemingly defensive, and not very friendly. Stop it.

im just exposing people who think they kno shit but dont.
post #106 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by jwdawso

I agree. Wizard69, Apple used 2.0 Ghz chips when IBM was planning on no more then 1.8 Ghz AFAIK. They could have used 1.8 Ghz max and people would be happy, they were expecting that. Instead, they used 2.0 Ghz max.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Reply
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Reply
post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Zapchud
Err.. how cannot newer/faster processors boost performance on Windows?

I'm at a loss with this. Windows, so far (it's coming soon, and betas are already available,) is not 64-bit. What I don't understand is if Windows can handle more then 4 GB of RAM and 64-bit processes, much the same way Mac OS X v10.3 currently handles things.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Reply
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Reply
post #108 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I'm at a loss with this. Windows, so far (it's coming soon, and betas are already available,) is not 64-bit. What I don't understand is if Windows can handle more then 4 GB of RAM and 64-bit processes, much the same way Mac OS X v10.3 currently handles things.

more than 4GB Ram ... maybe but i don't think it can handle 32bit and 64bit processes the way like os x. wasn't this a shortcoming of the amd 64bit cpu? that it can't do 32bit and 64bit mode at once but had to restart ...? anyone knows more on that?

perhaps this is the reason for intel not to offer a 64bit consumer-chip yet
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #109 of 118
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports up to
8 64bit processors with 64GB RAM.

Datacenter Edition goes up to 128 processors with
512 GB RAM.

Both are for Intel's IA64.

The AMD64 support will be at Server 2003 Enterprise
Edition level and later desktop/workstation.

AMD64 can happily run 32bit and 64bit processes
side-by-side.

On top of this older versions of Windows support
PAE which enables up to 36bit addressing with
a 4GB limit per process.

Apple are the ones lagging on 64bit at the moment,
though I'd expect 10.4 to offer a 64bit version.
post #110 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
im just exposing people who think they kno shit but dont.

Exposing yourself again? Tsk, tsk.

"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Thankfully the majority of engineers don't think like that. You aren't a graduate or ever going to be a particularly good engineer if you believe that. Any engineer past 2nd or 3rd year uni will be able to talk to you about the importance of understanding the assumptions and limitations a model is built on and why more complex models are necessary.

sure but most of them dont go out and create models.
post #112 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Exposing yourself again? Tsk, tsk.


no. what do you have to say? get out.
post #113 of 118
Can I just say this has evolved into one of the most arcane threads in some time, with all of the strange 'handbags at twenty paces' bitchiness that you sometimes find in closeted academic environments.

And I didn't even have to drive to Oxford, negotiate the one-way system, or find a parking space.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
post #114 of 118
Well as someone else has already used, I think the operative word is sandbagging. What CEO in is right mind would commit to 3GHz machines if he hasn't already seen them? Further your information is not consistant with materials supplied by IBM.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I agree. Wizard69, Apple used 2.0 Ghz chips when IBM was planning on no more then 1.8 Ghz AFAIK. They could have used 1.8 Ghz max and people would be happy, they were expecting that. Instead, they used 2.0 Ghz max.
post #115 of 118
I don't know much about electrical network, but in my observation, voltages of chips are lower and lower, generations after generations.
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
'handbags at twenty paces'



Do you mind if I borrow that? That's a great phrase.


As to the "3GHz" claim: I have no doubt that Steve saw a 970 running at 3GHz some time ago. It was probably one of a handful of freaks to come off the line that illustrated the CPU's potential as manufacturing and fabrication technology improved. (It's only 50% faster than the 2GHz, and 50% scaling isn't such a lofty goal on an architecture built for speed.) Apple is currently on track to sell over well over a million 970s in their PowerMacs over the course of a year - hundreds of times more volume than Intel can claim for their Itanium, or AMD for their Opteron. They can only offer speeds that IBM can offer in large quantities, and it stands to reason that those would be toward the middle (if not actually in the middle) of the performance curve. Note, again, that the machine Apple is offering at the top of the line uses faster chips than IBM promised it could sell in quantity. How you can derive from this that they're holding back, I cannot imagine.

There was a rumor that IBM had seen a 4.2GHz 970 in their labs. Well and good. But is Apple supposed to have taken that one lab creation and slapped it into a single custom-engineered PowerMac?
"...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 #117 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by linefear
IBM, as recently as this week, has begun the process of fabricating 90nm G5s in volume. According to sources, test yields have shown the revision to clock up to 2.6GHz and come in a variety-pack of 4 flavors: 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.6GHz.
What do you think the G5 line will be with this information?

Personally, I doubt we'll see these processors early in 2004. If I were predicting...

Jan/Feb we'll see

G5 Towers(still using a 0.13µm process) @
....2.4GHz dual
....2.2GHz dual
....2.0GHz single

G5 iMac
....1.4GHz 15" and 17"
....1.6GHz 20"

maybe slight decreases in price, but not much. As IBM manufactures the 970, small tweaks in the process may yield small decreases in heat generated, but I believe the G5 case design, focused on the ability to dissipate more heat than the current cpu's and system generate.

Sometime in July/August the 0.09µm process will be in production and then we'll see the 3.0GHz G5 Steve Jobs mentioned.

As far as laptops, I fear we're in for a somewhat longer what for a G5, but sitting out here on this limb, if I squint, I can see a 1.4GHz G5 Powerbook introduced in the Jan/Feb timeframe. But this limb is kind of limp and skinny, and some guy with a big capital M on his headset is taking a chainsaw out.
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 #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy, Nr9, or mmicist (take your pick):

If we can resonate the biomolecular echo, we might be able to shut down the metaphasic flux and inhibit the magnetic deflector!

To replicate the gravitational entity would not be logical, because the dampening flow would then optimize the cloaked transporter.

Quote:
If we can shatter the spacial diagnostic, we might be able to overload the low-speed nacelle and reverse the anaphasic neural net!

Its just possible that the quantum filament would analyze the phased matrix, but only if we decrypt the navigational servo-mechanism and destabilize the two-dimensional fragment!

Quote:
If we can adjust the localized radiation, we might be able to shut down the modular inducer and overload the unstable carrier!

Captain, I canna cancel out the computer because the extra-dimensional inhibitor is about to stabilize the magnetic morphosis!

Generated by Treknobabble
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New G5 chips? 4 flavors: 2GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.4GHz, and 2.6GHz