or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › motorola has a chance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

motorola has a chance - Page 2

post #41 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by geekmeet
i hate to say it but im not as interested in this stuff as i used to be.
i think the real action is in wireless.
right now its all about phones.
apple needs to get involved in a big way because that will be the future..period.

Wireless? Yes, witness the Airport Express. But phones are best left to the Sonys, Nokias and the rest.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
However, the 2.5 GHz 970fx(0.09 µm) typical watts is 50 and the old(0.13 µm) 1.8 GHz 970 typical watts is 51, so does that mean the liquid cooling is mainly for noise reduction/rapid heat flucuations or will the 970fx actually scale to 3.0 GHz.

My suspicion is that the liquid cooling has little to do with the overall heat budget. Rather, it has to do with the heat density in 90nm chips. Remember the resin problems they had with the chip capsule for the FX? I suspect that the chip was getting so hot at certain locations that it would smoke a hole in itself while other parts remain cool.

Check out the cooligy site (www.cooligy.com) for some discussion of the 90nm and less issues.
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Mr. MacPhisto, those seem to be all plausible events and outcomes. Any clue as to SMU_Neo2 in the 10.3.4 update? To me that just seems to scream, "and now, for something completely different."

Have no ideas. Everything I've said I've pieced together from contacts at IBM. I don't have any at Apple or FreeScale.

SMU_Neo2 deos puzzle me too. I think we're going to be getting some interesting stuff at WWDC in addition to the Tiger preview.

One thing I find interesting is the 3-inch gap between the stand and the new Cinema displays reported by Thinksecret. They're usually pretty good. I could just see something fitting in that 3-inch high gap. It's probably just my imagination running away with me. I had thought about people wishing for a pizza-box Mac. Imagine if FreeScale is about ready to deliver a higher-speed, low power G4 that could fit in something like that. I'd certainly buy that at the right price, though I don't think they'll pull off dual core this summer. If they do, then Moto would be back in a big way.
post #44 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
One thing I find interesting is the 3-inch gap between the stand and the new Cinema displays reported by Thinksecret. They're usually pretty good. I could just see something fitting in that 3-inch high gap. It's probably just my imagination running away with me. I had thought about people wishing for a pizza-box Mac.

That could be interesting. The other possibility if these are indeed real, is that they are going after more of the PC display market by going DVI. Why the heck not, after all?
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
That could be interesting. The other possibility if these are indeed real, is that they are going after more of the PC display market by going DVI. Why the heck not, after all?

I saw someone else mention in another thread somewhere that ATI has gone on record saying videocards would be more abundant and cheaper for Macs if Apple abandoned ADC. While ADC was a nice concept for ease of use, if getting rid of it will mean Macs can now more easily get high-end cards, I'm all for it. The big question for me is this: will there be a way to use PC cards on the Macs again by flashing them? Apple really needs to get on the ball, especially if they want to push Macs for animation, CAD, etc. Honestly, if Autodesk is bringing AutoCAD to th Mac, as rumored, then high-end cards coupled with the PPC's incredible ability for floating point operations should give the Mac a huge advantage. While the G5 is slightly inferior to the AMDs and Intels of the world in integer crunching, the PowerPC rocks on floating point thanks to a great SIMD unit.
post #46 of 103
I don't think the powerbooks will be updated with the G4's anymore. The next powerbook revision I think will happen is the January Macworld and sport a G5.
post #47 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
I don't think the powerbooks will be updated with the G4's anymore. The next powerbook revision I think will happen is the January Macworld and sport a G5.

I don't think so. Right now, only a lower speed G5 could get in there. Let's say we get a 1.6 GHZ G5. A 1.5GHZ G4 draws less juice and is about the some speed in the real world. A low power G4 with a faster FSB and improved architecture would be superior to a G5 in a laptop. Add to this the fact that FreeScale has said they are developing (and maybe soon fabbing?!?) the e600, a G4 that is system-on-chip, greatly reducing the needs from the logic board and saving power. Add to this the possibility of dual-core SoC G4s and you've got a chip that is far better suited to PowerBooks and iBooks. A chip that will draw less power and reduce development costs. I see the G5s being in only in PowerMacs and higher-end consumer Macs. Next year we should see dual-core, multi-threaded G5 (or G6?) chips from IBM that will give the PowerMacs and high end consumer machine plenty of kick, but the G4s will keep the PowerBooks in the high-end range of laptops, especially for power to energy consumption. Couple that with the development of the e700 that will go beyond 3GHZ and feature triple-cores and more. Also note that Crolles is the only fab that is already preparing to go below 45nm. Fishkill is only prepared for 45nm at this point and will have to go through a refit to get below it.
post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I don't think so. Right now, only a lower speed G5 could get in there. Let's say we get a 1.6 GHZ G5. A 1.5GHZ G4 draws less juice and is about the some speed in the real world. A low power G4 with a faster FSB and improved architecture would be superior to a G5 in a laptop. Add to this the fact that FreeScale has said they are developing (and maybe soon fabbing?!?) the e600, a G4 that is system-on-chip, greatly reducing the needs from the logic board and saving power. Add to this the possibility of dual-core SoC G4s and you've got a chip that is far better suited to PowerBooks and iBooks. A chip that will draw less power and reduce development costs. I see the G5s being in only in PowerMacs and higher-end consumer Macs. Next year we should see dual-core, multi-threaded G5 (or G6?) chips from IBM that will give the PowerMacs and high end consumer machine plenty of kick, but the G4s will keep the PowerBooks in the high-end range of laptops, especially for power to energy consumption. Couple that with the development of the e700 that will go beyond 3GHZ and feature triple-cores and more. Also note that Crolles is the only fab that is already preparing to go below 45nm. Fishkill is only prepared for 45nm at this point and will have to go through a refit to get below it.

Yep, all good things. RapidIO is the only thing I can see as a stumbling block as Apple, if I recall correctly, was not buying into it. They wanted to go down the Hypertransport road. Not sure how things stand today....
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #49 of 103
what is/will be the difference between e600 and e700 really?
post #50 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter North
Im praying for something like this to come out within the next 6 months or so:

-Powerbook G5-Mobile (maybe using e600 or e700 w/ 400mhz fsb)
-new Gun Metal case, still roughly 1 inch thick
-All widescreen
-128mb video
-gigabit internet and airport extreme
-superdrives

-1.7ghz 13 inch
-1.8ghz 15 inch
-2.0ghz 15 inch
-2.0ghz 17 inch
\t
of course probably wont fly, maybe IBM has been building something centrino like under wraps.

are u the same guy who posted this on macrumors
post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter North
what is/will be the difference between e600 and e700 really?

If I remember well, the main difference would be 64-bit support on the e700 and(?) higher frequencies.
post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by windowsblowsass
are u the same guy who posted this on macrumors

Not to pigeon-hole myself, but wasn't Peter North a porn star?

...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Not to pigeon-hole myself, but wasn't Peter North a porn star?

yup
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Not to pigeon-hole myself, but wasn't Peter North a porn star?


all i know is that the exact same post showed up on mr earlyer today
post #55 of 103
So the reality is finally setting in: the G5 is NOT a mobile CPU, and neither does it look to be one in the forseeable future because of the way it derives it's speed. With huge FSB and relatively high clock rates, the G5 is well suited to DP configs in a desktop, but it doesn't look to be a chip that will respond well to lower FSB speeds and clock rates -- two essential features of laptop powersaving.

Which is all to say nothing of the true power consumption and heat dissapation of the G5 -- which by now is obvious to all as something much much higher than IBM's original microprocessor forum numbers. Or, as reasoned above, it may not be worth running a G5 at sub 1.5ghz speeds at all.

IBM hasn't done much in the last 4 years (as far as Apple is concerned) except for releasing a ton of vapourware -- 2 ghz G3's or alphabet soup 750's with supposed "altivec-like" speed enhancements.

Enter moto/freescale, with far more interest in low power computer CPUs than IBM has shown. They're looking like a lock for the next powerbook, and if IBM ain't careful, the next iMac too.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #56 of 103
a laptop specific chip needs to be built by either IBM or Freescale and dubbed the G5-mobile or something along those lines even if it isnt the chip thats in the powermacs.
post #57 of 103
Well, actually, Freescale/Motorola does make all of the chips in the current PowerBook and iBook lines. I would guess that that trend will continue for some time. IBM is more big guns, Freescale is more low-power chips. I don't see IBM making mobile chips - they did sell off most of their 440 line for a reason. \
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
IBM hasn't done much in the last 4 years (as far as Apple is concerned) except for releasing a ton of vapourware -- 2 ghz G3's or alphabet soup 750's with supposed "altivec-like" speed enhancements.

Aside from the G5, you mean? That is a pretty significant achievement in anybody's book. The vapourware isn't really vapour either, it was rumours for the most part and its hardly fair to hold them to rumours. By most accounts IBM wasn't even trying to build chips for Apple until fairly recently, and then it was the 970/970FX.

I think what has caught everyone by surprise is that 90nm is not only really hard, but its payoff is nowhere near what previous transitions have brought in terms of benefits. 90nm parts are smaller, and therefore cheaper... if you can get the yields up to 130nm levels. From a power consumption and clock rate perspective, however, it isn't significantly better than 130nm and it increases the heat density problem to epic proportions.

The ramifications of this for Freescale will be interesting. If their partnership at Crolles works out well, and they can actually deliver a 90nm G4-class part (say with on-chip memory controller), what will its heat / clock characteristics be like? According to IBM the fab & design teams will need to work much more closely together at 90nm and below, which may not bode well for Freescale using an external fab. I'd place my bet with IBM being able to make better progress than the as-yet unproven Freescale/Crolles combo.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #59 of 103
seems to me that this 90nm and below thing really bodes well for dual core chips. I can't believe people are bitchin about apple not going to 3GHz, who cares I want dual core dual processors and some damn HD space, period...
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 #60 of 103
Quote:
Aside from the G5, you mean? That is a pretty significant achievement in anybody's book. The vapourware isn't really vapour either, it was rumours for the most part and its hardly fair to hold them to rumours. By most accounts IBM wasn't even trying to build chips for Apple until fairly recently, and then it was the 970/970FX.



do you think IBM or Freescale and Apple have been working on a new chip for the laptops? I mean, if its going to take a while to develop, I hope they dont count on the G4 to last a few more years in the powerbooks in its current state.
post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Well, actually, Freescale/Motorola does make all of the chips in the current PowerBook and iBook lines. I would guess that that trend will continue for some time.

You forgot the eMac and iMac lines .
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter North
do you think IBM or Freescale and Apple have been working on a new chip for the laptops?

Of course they have been and they are working on that. Do you see anything for the next Powerbook update? The Powerbooks use now the highest clocked G4 and there is nothing better right now that could go into the Powerbook for the next update (late this year or early next year). Nothing visible to us. This means there is certainly something in the works. The question is who is going to produce it, IBM or Freescale and what it is exactly.

Quote:

I mean, if its going to take a while to develop, I hope they dont count on the G4 to last a few more years in the powerbooks in its current state.

If a new chip comes from Freescale, it will be a G4. Hopefully, not the G4 we know today. See for example this one. It is a short description of the upcoming e600/700 architectures.
post #63 of 103
Apple has publically said there will not be a G5 PowerBook for sometime. If one reasonably precludes the possibility of a split PowerBook lineup (all Powerbooks not using the same processor core), one can logically conclude by Apple's statements that future G5s are reserved for the PowerBook, thus negating the possibility of an e600 PowerBook.

The iBook's and the eMac's futures lie with the e600.
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Existence
... one can logically conclude by Apple's statements that future G5s are reserved for the PowerBook, thus negating the possibility of an e600 PowerBook.

I believe that they would call G5 in the Powerbook, anything drastically different from the current G4, even if it is not a 64-bit chip. And let us not forget here that the e700 has 64-bit support, like a G5 from IBM.
post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
I believe that they would call G5 in the Powerbook, anything drastically different from the current G4, even if it is not a 64-bit chip. And let us not forget here that the e700 has 64-bit support, like a G5 from IBM.

I doubt that. Being 64 bit is one of the things that defines the G5. If they use the e600 in a powerbook, maybe they'll break from the Gx naming scheme. After all, there's nothing really sacrosanct about it.
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Aside from the G5, you mean? That is a pretty significant achievement in anybody's book. The vapourware isn't really vapour either, it was rumours for the most part and its hardly fair to hold them to rumours.

Yes, except the G5, my bad. As for the G3 class vapourware, I have to disagree. IBM had press releases saying they'd tested PPC's up to 2Ghz, and spoke of the last G3 as having altivec like speed enhancements. Perhaps not strictly vapourware, but the clear implication was that they could build a faster PPC than moto; they never did, of course, untill now.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #67 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Yes, except the G5, my bad. As for the G3 class vapourware, I have to disagree. IBM had press releases saying they'd tested PPC's up to 2Ghz, and spoke of the last G3 as having altivec like speed enhancements. Perhaps not strictly vapourware, but the clear implication was that they could build a faster PPC than moto; they never did, of course, untill now.

IBM releases technology press releases all the time, that doesn't mean they are intended to make a product out of it. Often it is just to gauge response from potential OEMs. Quite likely nobody even cared about a 2 GHz G3 so they just dropped it. They also never said anything about a G3 with AltiVec, although on one roadmap they had "SIMD extensions" listed next to the last generation G3 -- again, this is hardly a product announcement and the rumours from March said that Apple had told IBM they didn't want it so IBM dropped it. Why should they build something that nobody is going to use? That would be dumb.

Now IBM is clearly invested in their Power architecture, which is primarily focused on POWER4-derived technologies. I'm dubious about when that will reach notebooks and expect that Freescale will have that end of the solution. There might be a SoC 9xx eventually though, I suppose.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
I think what has caught everyone by surprise is that 90nm is not only really hard, but its payoff is nowhere near what previous transitions have brought in terms of benefits. 90nm parts are smaller, and therefore cheaper... if you can get the yields up to 130nm levels. From a power consumption and clock rate perspective, however, it isn't significantly better than 130nm and it increases the heat density problem to epic proportions.

The ramifications of this for Freescale will be interesting. If their partnership at Crolles works out well, and they can actually deliver a 90nm G4-class part (say with on-chip memory controller), what will its heat / clock characteristics be like? According to IBM the fab & design teams will need to work much more closely together at 90nm and below, which may not bode well for Freescale using an external fab. I'd place my bet with IBM being able to make better progress than the as-yet unproven Freescale/Crolles combo.

Motorola's design strategy, and their Quixotic quest for 130nm, might actually help them here. I remember when the 7457 came out everyone was baffled by how huge it was. The contemporary G3 packed nearly as many transistors into a much smaller space, even after you normalized for process. And sure enough, the die photo of the 7457 showed that it was laid out like a Midwestern town. Why?

Well, I'll bet it shrinks down well. The design is absolutely paranoid about preventing "hot spots" and so there's all kinds of space. It's an approach that nobody else is taking, as far as I know — I've even seen it held that it's nothing more than the result of junior engineers out of their depth — but it just might work.

Certainly, by now, Mot/Freescale is quite used to dealing with difficult processes and low yields.

As far as the gap between process & design teams go, Crolles will be using Motorola's process, built around Black Diamond with all the trimmings, so that should help. I can only imagine where IBM would be if they hadn't had the design and process engineers for the 970 series all ensconced in Fishkill.
"...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 #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Yes, except the G5, my bad. As for the G3 class vapourware, I have to disagree. IBM had press releases saying they'd tested PPC's up to 2Ghz, and spoke of the last G3 as having altivec like speed enhancements. Perhaps not strictly vapourware, but the clear implication was that they could build a faster PPC than moto; they never did, of course, untill now.

power 4 power 4+ power 5 (basis for all 97x designs)
post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by windowsblowsass
poer 4 power 4+ ppoer 5

Either your keyboard has issues or you are trying to say something .
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Apple has publically said there will not be a G5 PowerBook for sometime. If one reasonably precludes the possibility of a split PowerBook lineup (all Powerbooks not using the same processor core), one can logically conclude by Apple's statements that future G5s are reserved for the PowerBook, thus negating the possibility of an e600 PowerBook.

so if there is going to be no G5 in the PB for awhile, and the e600 wont be used, then for the next year or so they are going to keep using the current g4s?
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
And sure enough, the die photo of the 7457 showed that it was laid out like a Midwestern town. Why?

Well, I'll bet it shrinks down well. The design is absolutely paranoid about preventing "hot spots" and so there's all kinds of space. It's an approach that nobody else is taking, as far as I know — I've even seen it held that it's nothing more than the result of junior engineers out of their depth — but it just might work.

PPC7447 - 21.3W at 1.33GHz
PPC7447A - 20.0W at 1.42GHz
PPC 970 - 65W at 2.0GHz
PPC 970FX - 50W at 2.5GHz

Any doubt why Motorola chips are in laptops?
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Rhumgod
PPC7447 - 21.3W at 1.33GHz
PPC7447A - 20.0W at 1.42GHz
PPC 970 - 65W at 2.0GHz
PPC 970FX - 50W at 2.5GHz

Any doubt why Motorola chips are in laptops?

None at all. As I've said before, it may be feasible to put a 1.6GHZ 90nm G5 in a PowerBook (though the system controller likely makes it a bit stickier), but are their any real benefits to it, and will it be faster than the 1.5GHZ G4? I think that after the FSB is reduced greatly in speed the G5 begins to lose some of its advantage because bandwidth is reduced.

Actually, I think Motorola chips do quite well when you consider their bus speed and lack of true DDR support. With some architectural improvements, better cache access (and increased cache), and a faster FSB (up to 400MHZ?) with true DDR implementation - I think Moto would have a big time winner here. Heck, I think they could build a chip that would rival Centrino - lower clock rate, but plenty fast because of intelligent design. Add dual core to that and the PowerBooks would be in great shape.

To move on to other posts, the biggest question with Apple's naming strategy is whether or not they will use the e600 in desktops. It is possible that Apple could put the G5 in all of its desktops (which could make better use of it because they would allow for the high bus speeds, etc) and the e600 in all laptops. If this is the case, maybe it would be best to call the e600 that "M5" and begin to clearly delineate the mobile chips from the desktop chips. The biggest problem is that it shouldn't be called a G5 and you can't really call it a G6 - and G4 doesn't resonate well if everyone in the Mac community. Besides, I don't think the e700 would really be a G4 and you can't call it a G6. Could be an interesting problem, or Apple might just stick with G4 for a long time.
post #74 of 103
e600 is definitely a G4, and e700 could simply be called a G5, due to its 64-bitness.
post #75 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter North
so if there is going to be no G5 in the PB for awhile, and the e600 wont be used, then for the next year or so they are going to keep using the current g4s?

We first have to admit as fact that the G5 won't go to the Powerbook for quite some time yet. Now, if Freescale delivers the e600 chip in time (say this autumn), then Apple will use it for sure. Apple has no other choice and the e600 is going to be very nice (at least the descriptions leave to think so).

What happens if Freescale fails? Now, this would be interesting. It would leave perhaps the Powerbook line for a whole year or more without CPU updates, unless they are able to push a little more the clock speed of the old (but still in use) G4. But I am not sure if it makes sense to do that, since already the clock and the bus frequencies are at 9:1 ratio. And if it makes sense, on the other side there is already the Dothan chip, running at 2 GHz and sporting architectural improvements that would challenge even a G5. Hehe, fail is not an option now for Freescale.

What gives me faith and hope, is the move of the iBook line to the G4. The gap between the two portable lines is very narrow now. I don't think Apple would do this if there was not something really good coming for the Powerbook. And we know this is not a G5.
post #76 of 103
Quote:
We first have to admit as fact that the G5 won't go to the Powerbook for quite some time yet.


yeah good point, i know i want more powerful pb's and would enjoy a pb that was g5 like in power, but if stuffing a g5 into a pb means 2 hours of battery life, 2 inch thick case, loud fans and hot metal then i will pass. just hoping something more pentium m like comes out that is geared for laptops. thanks
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
e600 is definitely a G4, and e700 could simply be called a G5, due to its 64-bitness.

Apple should have called the G5 a G6 - we waited long enough for two processor revs, and the name is just marketing anyway. If they did that, they'd have room to grow a "consumer" line of processors that could be 32-bit but shed the stigma that the G4 is getting.

With that in mind, why not call the consumer chips "i5" and the pro chips "G5"? That way, whether it's freescale or IBM who makes the consumer chips, the "G5" brand is protected, but everyone can upgrade to a "5"

i5 -> 32 bit but >1.5 GHZ, optimized for consumer requirements like low power and small form factor (think Centrino)

G5 -> high power reqs but 64-bit, optimized for the sort of things I don't do on my home computer.

Then they'd just need a G-something for the powerbooks. Some kind of stopgap solution.

The added benefit of this is that right now, "Power" means "dual" and there's no hope of the PowerBook even getting one G5, much less 2. If the "Power" and "i" lines used different processors, this problem goes away...
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Actually, I think Motorola chips do quite well when you consider their bus speed and lack of true DDR support. With some architectural improvements, better cache access (and increased cache), and a faster FSB (up to 400MHZ?) with true DDR implementation - I think Moto would have a big time winner here. Heck, I think they could build a chip that would rival Centrino - lower clock rate, but plenty fast because of intelligent design. Add dual core to that and the PowerBooks would be in great shape.

The next significant G4 revision will most likely do away with the FSB completely, interface directly to RAM and have an I/O bus (RIO or HT). If Apple is really lucky some of the I/O devices will move directly onto the processor as well. That will be a massive boost in performance for the G4, even without a clock speed bump. At 90nm it ought to stack up reasonably well against Centrino.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
The next significant G4 revision will most likely do away with the FSB completely, interface directly to RAM and have an I/O bus (RIO or HT). If Apple is really lucky some of the I/O devices will move directly onto the processor as well. That will be a massive boost in performance for the G4, even without a clock speed bump. At 90nm it ought to stack up reasonably well against Centrino.

I had forgotten that SoC would allow for this (I'm not a chip guru, by a long shot). I think Moto tends to lean towards Rapid I/O. Not only would there be a major speed boost, but there'd also be a reduction in overall system power consumption. RAM would still be a bottleneck, but only because it can't be utilized at the processor's speed. However, the removal of the FSB would remove a hughe bottleneck. Coupled with improved caching ability and a 1MB L2 cache, and this would be a very quick, efficient little chip. I'm rooting hard for FreeScale, because if they deliver this in the relatively near future, it's great news for Apple and MacHeads in general.
post #80 of 103
Quote:
RAM would still be a bottleneck, but only because it can't be utilized at the processor's speed.


any solutions or remedies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › motorola has a chance