Freescale 7448

Not much known, except something that said Vicki H. Burkhard of Sonnet, that is this will be the successor of the 7447A used today in the Powerbooks. Or something like that. Here is the link. The Register said something similar, but without revealing the exact chip type.

So I think, yes, this would be the an intermediate speed bump before the Powerbooks change radically their internals going to the e600 platform, by early summer next year (most probable).

That's basically correct, according to what I've heard. The 7448 will be the successor to the 7447A, implemented at 90 nm with 1 MB L2 cache, up to 2 GHz. Exactly when it's to be delivered is the question. It would be nice if it were in time for MWSF'05, but who knows.

Given Apple's repeated statements about the difficulty of getting a G5 into a PowerBook, I believe that they are targetting this chip for the next PowerBook, and have been for a while. At 2 GHz, with the expanded L2 cache, it should be a good upgrade, leading (hopefully) to the dual-core parts towards the end of '05.

I am believing now that when Apple says no G5 PB anytime soon, they really mean it. Now we just hope Freescale delivers in a timely fashion.

It's disconcerting that the 7440/7450 architecture will be going through 3 process generations, and yet, Moto/Freescale has done nothing to solve memory bandwidth issues with the processor except for increases in on-die cache.

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.

I don't have any information but if it hits 2GHz I really hope that it has an integrated memory controller. Yes I know it is suppose to have a 200MHZ bus, but that is something we have heard before.

If you look though the differnet pages at Freescale you will see a refernece to support for DDR memory. I'm not sur eif that is across the FSB or via an integrated memory controller. It would seem to be silly to even refernece DDR ram unless the processor had its own port, because otherwise it is a matter for the north bridge.

Such a beast, that is a G4 with a built in memory controller, would be like a new generation performance wise. That would make one excellent PowerBook.

Dave

Taken the data posted on Apple's iMac page and considering the FSB and CPU speed(GHz) of G5, G5 is not significantly faster than G4 at the same clock speed although G5 has so many well....advantages over the old G4. That not-so-fast G5 performance translates into purchase decision is: wait for the MPC 7448 powerbook, it's gonna be a great powerbook.

We'll see how well the G4 scales as its clock rate increases without a commensurate increase in memory bandwidth, especially AltiVec performance. The 1 MB on-die L2 cache will help, but only so much, especially on pro-level applications with large memory needs.

And your assuming that a prospective Powerbook G5 w/970fx would have the same clock rate as a Powerbook G4 w/7448. Perhaps true. We'll see if Freescale can avoid the problems at 90 nm that has plagued everyone else.


Yes, I'm sure it will be. I'm just disappointed that Motorola has essentially done nothing with the chip and that Apple is unwilling to be more diverse.

How diverse can they really be? The iMac weighs what? 20 lbs... with carefull venting and enclosure/stand layout that ensures maximum air flow. Even with laptop drives and smaller overall volume, how much would a PB G5 weigh?

There's gonna be a need for cooling, which is doable, and autonomy, which is also doable, but you're going to need bigger batteries, and that means weight.

The G5 just isn't there yet for mobile applications. It isn't just a question of heat/size/weight. It might not be any faster than a fast G4 if it has to run speed stepped 75% of the time. You can imagine that it needs AT LEAST that 533Mhz FSB on the low end iMac. Most likely, the chip just isn't all that fast once you start throttling the bus and the core clock rate.

Even with "only" a 200Mhz FSB and 1MB L2 on die cache, a G4 is going to be pretty fast for a laptop. And if it can do that and still come in under 10 watts, then that's a good thing. Watts are precious in a laptop config -- I'd rather see some go to a brighter backlight, than a slightly faster CPU. How about 4-5 hours of true, all options go, runtime? If you're mobile, that's better than a G5 too.

Go Freescale!!!

If you look at the internal shots of the iMac G5, is it me, or is the heat sink for the G5 processor passively cooled?


Of course. It's ok to have an 8+ lb Powerbook G5. I've never advocated replacing the Powerbook G4 with a G5. A Powerbook G5 would be the high end model while the Powerbook G4 becomes a mid-range. A Powerbook G5 could have such things as 4 SO-DIMM slots for 4 GB memory, dual drives, 2 mini-PCI slots etc.

This is what I mean by diversity.

Centrino = good. X86desktop cum mobile = not so good.

While guys like alienware have been stuffing desktop chips into laptops for a while now, those aren't really laptops so much as portables.

Why is there a G5 problem? Because to be fast, you have to run it at high Mhz with a big FSB -- both contributors to heat and power drain. If you want that, you're basically getting a big heavy machine with poor battery life. Probably hot too. The iMac can get by with fans because the air flow is always top to bottom, and the case is big. Liquid cooling a laptop at the very least means more weight, and possibly more battery drain as well -- if the system is active.

Now you can make the G5 cool. You need to trim the FSB and down clock, and probably speed step it too. But getting a G5 that will switch reliably at lower voltage will require the best of IBM's yeilds, and then downclocking them. So basically you have to pay for 2.5Ghz chips in order to run them at 1.5-1.6Ghz. Expensive and potentially no faster than a 1.5-2Ghz G4 with even a slightly improved FSB. But the G4 is a known laptop quantity, a good machine can be cranked out with minimal effort, and, therefore, minimal cost -- equals more profit.

Translation. No G5 powerbook... yet...

I posted this when the PB got the 1.5G - which is good, but Intel's Dothan is a G5 'class' chip.

I dont know how many Dothan laptops exist - I think the chip is expensive - interestingly the G4 1.5 performs quite well against the Banias Pentium M chips which accomodate most of the Centrino laptops.

No doubt the Dothan is a serious threat to Apple's portable line sic (sales) - I hope Cupertino know what theyre doing to combat this threat, a 2G G4 would help but must be available on or before MWSF IMO.

MOSR are suggesting the 7448 to be 1.6G - which I fail to see how this scaling would be received (positively) - 100MHz??, well just have to wait and see.

I'm not arguing with here, if you haven't noticed. Yes, laptops using desktop CPUs are luggables and aren't suited for mobile use. What I keep on saying is that there is a market for luggables, and Apple should be in it. Nearly every other manufacturer has a model in the market. There is a market for an $800 low spec computer, and Apple should be in it.

If Apple really wants to move iMac units, they should have a $999 iMac G5 with 15" monitor, 1.6 GHz processor, 400 MHz FSB, PC2700 DDR SDRAM, 40 GB drive, combo optical, 32 MB FX5200 Ultra, etc. They should be in as many markets as they can. I think you are in full agreement with that.


There is really no technical issue with having such a system. It's merely a tradeoff of performance for battery life: 2 hours instead of 5, as you say. I just don't have a problem with that because the market is there. What is gained is performance.

As for iMac air flow, it can be directed, and it isn't really that big of a deal whether the orientation is horizontal or vertical. With mobile components, the 17" iMac can be shrunken down to 1.5", I really don't doubt that.




If there are problems with the 970fx processors, then yeah Apple can't do anything about it but wait until it is fixed or use a different processor. Am I predicting a Powerbook G5 soon, no. All I'm saying is that it is technically possible. It was possible last year.

We've been over the performance issues quite a bit. The G4 and G5 are about equal in integer and AltiVec at the same clock rate. In FPU, the G5 will be 50 to 100% faster at the same clock rate. On top of that Apple does not have to produce a Powerbook G5 with the same form factor as 1" thick Powerbook G4. I don't even think they should since there is a definite market for portability. For various reasons discussed, a Powerbook G5 would have to be 1.5+ thick and therefore would have to be treated as a desktop replacement. Since it doesn't have to be the same thickness as a Powerbook G4, it can have a higher power budget and therefore higher clocked processor.

Ie, which would Apple rather sell? An 17" iMac G5 for $1500 or a 17" Powerbook G5 for $3000? It's odd we're discussing this Matsu, it's like I'm arguing with a bizarro world version of yourself.

I saw that suggestion also, frankly 1.6G is not enough but I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple try to promote it as an upgrade. That is not to say I want to see a G5 in a Powerbook just that Apple needs to do better with a performance increase.

Even if Apple gets considerable performance boosts from a 7448 with an integrated memory controller they still need to boost the clock rate significantly. It is a question of maintaining credibility in the market place.

As to the G5, unless IBM makes significant strides with the current process and design I don't think we will be seeing this chip in portables soon. It is a surprise to see the 970FX stuffed into the iMac. I have to wonder what the long term reliability in the iMac will be, it is not like the processor has a good reputation.

Thanks
Dave

If the 7448 starts at 1.6GHz and has a couple of speed bins above that, it'll be fine.

Apple has this model, it's called the iMac G5

It won't be so fine if Apple ignores the higher speeds and only delivers the 1.6GHz part. Lets face it once you get above 1.5GHz a 100MHz jump in speed is pretty meaningless. Not only does one need a significant speed jump in the processor the rest of the PC needs to be able to accommodate that speed increase.

At the minimum a 20% speed increase is required to be significant to the users. That would put operation at around 1.8GHz. This is what Apple needs to shoot for in the minimal configuration.

Don't forget that buy the time these machine come out Dothan will likely be released in another speed grade. The PowerBook is no longer leading edge in either processor performance nor battery life. So ideally we would be getting more than just the MHz increase.

Implementing a fast FSB will be helpful but the processor really needs a much faster memory interface. Time will tell.

Dave

Not quite. We're still talking laptops here.

Imagine this:

Take an iMac G5...Remove the stand...Attach Apple's VESA-mount adapter.

Then attach a VESA-compatable "iMac G5 LugNut" . This 3rd party product holds the iMac G5 erect, and has a weighted base with an integrated Keyboard/Trackpad that can fold over the screen for transportation. An angled/repositioned power cord is part of this solution too.

Slide this puppy in a case and go.

Better make a few trips to the gym too.

That was my first thought when i read the article. 1.7-1.8G is more like apple's realism, I doubt the 2G that's been prophecised. Still it equally allows the ibook to get faster chips as well.

I like your ideas, and if you asked me 3 months ago that apple would drop the 15" iMac - I would have said that was stupidity in the extreme, but most people/businesses now want 17" as standard - and with the price of the 17" imac the same as the old 15", it seems as though the market has moved on.

Still, your suggestions are very intersting, but dont you think apple would have run financial modelling on potentially incremental sales/market share boosting products?. I have no idea - but i dont think theyre too stupid at Cupertino.

I agree with you 17" is standard. But they need a good product in the sub-1000% market, and the eMac is not it. I think many Mac buyers settle on, with some chagrin, on a purchase of an eMac. That's loyalty, and Apple should have a product that rewards them.


Sure. I think all of us know that they do financial analysis on any product they sell and what it would do to the bottom line. Considering their products, one is lead to believe that they do not intend to increase marketshare and are fine living with the niche market they have as long as they have profits.

One of my disappointments is the fact that they have stagnated or regressed with their manufacturing capabilities. They know that just-in-time near-zero inventory manufacturing is virtually the only way to do business these days. And they seem to have stopped pushing towards that goal. I would think that BTO options would be easier in such an operational, yet they have very little BTO options across the entire line.

It's still not a laptop.

Btw, is there truly a leak about the 7448 being a 90 nm product? "Less than 10 Watts" could easily mean a low voltage (<1.1V) 130 nm product using some special process?

But it IS a luggable