Originally posted by Powerdoc
These story of 3 G5 is bs. There is bi processor, quadri processor, octo and cluster, but tri ?
There are in fact strings in AppleSystemInfo.strings that suggests that Darwin is ready to be put on a three way system. Link to Hardmac.com
.// String used to describe a triple processor configuration.
// IMPORTANT: Make sure the right hand side value contains the substring "%@".
// "%@" will get replaced by the processor speed and type string
// (e.g. "800 MHz PowerPC G3").
"3xCPUFormat" = "3 x %@";
Is there any technical obstacle for doing three way systems? Why should it always be about power of two? This rumored Xbox Next is a six way system.
And now to something completely different:
Two singe core processors fabbed at 130 nm, 1.3 V
Three dual core processors fabbed at 65 nm, .9 V
I we assume that the transistor count per core is the same and the cost of a processor is directly related to the size of the die, then the latter alternative would cost two thirds of the former.
The cost of the CPUs in Xbox Next would be considerable cheaper than those in current two way Power Macs.
If we assume that IBM manages to reduce wattage when moving to 65 nm, in the same ammount that they did when moving to 90 nm, then the latter alternative would draw a bit less power than the former.
The Xbox Next wouldn't need as much cooling as the current Power Mac, and they would be more heat resistant too.
If we assume that Microsoft will be requiring 40 times the ammount of processor cores as Apple use today (10 million Xbox Next, 6 cores in each = 60 million cores, compared to 1 million Power Macs with 1.5 cores each = 1,5 million) then Microsoft will be in a better spot for volume discount.
If we assume that MS will use the "slowest" version of a processor-family then we're talking about parts running at 3 GHz. These will be cheapest and draw the least ammount of power of all the processors in that generation comming of the production line.
970 is the smallest high end procesor out there today, less then half the size of a Prescott. If Intel can make a fat margin out of selling cheap Pentiums ($80?) then so can IBM. Why do we assume that these processors will cost a fortune for Microsoft? Is it because Apple demands $3000 for a complete two way Power Mac? Is there a way for Microsoft to make a Xbox Next with the suggested specs for let's say $500? I think so. Especially considering that they are developing just one machine, and then making tens of millions of identical boxes.
That's a lot to assume, but I think it's doable. With that said, I really don't think the report is accurate. Seems a bit to extreme for me. But, either way, Apple will be paying a lot less for processors in the future. That's good!