or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › power mac won't get any faster
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

power mac won't get any faster - Page 5  

post #161 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
eh wahtever you think

obviously it was with respect to the alternative, which is a faster single core


Do I detect a slightly milder Nr9? I can accept your explanation, but I only had your words to go by, which appears to be two independent reasons for going dual core. The first one is wrong and the second one is correct. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics for the reader to see the other meaning you had in mind.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
it solves it because it is twice the area hence easier to cool. Also, you don't have to drive the voltage up(which you have to do if you want to up the frequency instead) power is proportional to voltage ^2 so that matters a lot ...



Let me try to say what I think you meant: Increasing performance by increasing clock rate means we keep the same chip size, but increase power greatly. This is really hard or impossible to cool. By going dual core, power goes up but so does chip size. Also, the power increase with a dual core is less than with a boost in clock frequency.

As one engineer to another, the most valuable thing I learned was to communicate better. I had to take what was jokingly called dumbbell English at the university. For years I worked on improving my communication skills, which do not come naturally for me, but the effort is worth it, and it is not a finished work. I am constantly trying to improve, to say things better and get my point across more easily and clearly.
post #162 of 297
Thread Starter 
they clearly mean the same thing

if you can't see that , you are dumb

why the hell would I talk about increasing voltage. of course im talking about an alternative

worrying about english gets in the way of doing the real technical stuff with the most efficiency possible. there is no free lunch. energy you spend constructing your sentences can be used for your technical engineering shit.
post #163 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
Do I detect a slightly milder Nr9? . . .


post #164 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
Sun just announced that the UltraSparc IV+ went 90 nm and gained a quite a lot frequenzy wise.
From 1.2 GHz to 1.8 GHz by doing the 130 nm to 90 nm dance we are all talking about.

So.. What is Texas Instrument's secret of doing a 50% increase in speed? Was their former fab really bad and their new really great, or is their 1.8 GHz claim just a lie or wishful thinking?

I think the secret here is that 1.2 GHz wasn't pushing the 130 nm envelope.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #165 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
worrying about english gets in the way of doing the real technical stuff with the most efficiency possible. there is no free lunch. energy you spend constructing your sentences can be used for your technical engineering shit.

I hate to break it to you Nr9, but you need to live and work in a world populated by humans. The sooner you learn that the energy you put into inter-personal communication is valuable, the sooner you'll find that you have a career path. If you can't see that then its your loss, not anyone else's.



Nonetheless this is an interesting discussion, so let's get back to it. The processors that have "done well" on 90 nm seem to be those that are not pushing the frequency limits. Intel's Dothan, AMD's first 90nm, IBM's 2 GHz 970FX, and the new UltraSparc all demonstrate considerably improved thermal performances. The trouble only seems to occur with the frequency leaders -- Prescott and the 2.5+ GHz 970FX. This actually supports Nr9's statements (allowing for his tendency to make them sound extreme): the frequency scaling benefits of at 90 nm seem to be non-existant on the 2.5+ GHz chips. This makes me seriously wonder about a couple of high profile high clock rate chips that are supposed to be showing up in 2005/2006...
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #166 of 297
Programmer,

What is Prescott's speed? I mean, if Intel gets to 3.* GHZ at 90nm and IBM gets to 2.5+ GHZ then I would have to say 2.5 GHZ isn't the 90nm barrier Nr9 is claiming. There are obviously a number of factors that are involved that allow such a wide range of speeds across many different 90nm chips.

And your comment about the trouble with frequency leaders: aren't the problems almost always exclusively with the frequency leaders?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #167 of 297
When engineers don't communicate and document requirements properly, the project cost can easily spiral out of control and/or the end product doesn't meet customer expectations. And good communications skills are absolutely essential to this. As the size of the project goes up, the importance of team communications goes up exponentially.

And this communications skill includes inter-personal communications as well as written skills. I've seen too many examples of badly written requirements that are misinterpreted by the design engineer who goes down the wrong path (very efficiently, by the way, but totally wasted effort). The end result is a product that doesn't work the way the customer needed, so a redesign or a quick but inelegant fix is implemented. This kind of mistakes cost money, schedule, and customer satisfaction, and could have been easily avoided if the requirements are properly written without ambiguity.
post #168 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer

Nonetheless this is an interesting discussion, so let's get back to it. The processors that have "done well" on 90 nm seem to be those that are not pushing the frequency limits. Intel's Dothan, AMD's first 90nm, IBM's 2 GHz 970FX, and the new UltraSparc all demonstrate considerably improved thermal performances. The trouble only seems to occur with the frequency leaders -- Prescott and the 2.5+ GHz 970FX. This actually supports Nr9's statements (allowing for his tendency to make them sound extreme): the frequency scaling benefits of at 90 nm seem to be non-existant on the 2.5+ GHz chips. This makes me seriously wonder about a couple of high profile high clock rate chips that are supposed to be showing up in 2005/2006...

Chip design / manufacturing isn't my area, but the way I see it is:

If there really is a Mhz wall, that means that the low end will shortly bump into the high end making single chips from each manufacturer low price commodity items - roughly comperable to other manufacturer's chips in performance and price. A single chip becomes a almost fixed unit of computational power that has a relatively low marketplace value.

Which means the focus turns almost exclusively to the memory system and each company's implementation. Which is what we are seeing with IBM,Sony, and Toshiba's Cell technology. And regardless of what one thinks of the specifics of Cell, a company like Apple will have to plan to move to something similar in concept if they don't want to get left behind.

The first Cell workstations are supposed to be released by the end of this year - I'm not sure if they are still on target for making that release time. But they should give us a idea of the type of system Apple could move to in the not to distant future.
post #169 of 297
Hrm... Cell workstations... perhaps the demands programmers have needed for employment? Port code... should be fun

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

post #170 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
Mark my words, there will not be a 5GHz processor for at least the next five years and there probably will never be.

I'm not an engineer so I will stay out of that conversation. However, using simple common sense: In 1999, I don't think anyone was able to accurately predict the specs of todays CPUs. During the past five years, there must have been some innovations that were expected and some that just came from nowhere. If Nr9 can accurately predict the evolution of the PowerPCs in the year 2009, he must have some magical powers or something. Use that power to buy stocks or predict the results of the Presidential election.
Sold my beige.
Sold my beige.
post #171 of 297
LOL!

We should change this thread name to "Nr9: easy target".

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

post #172 of 297
It is amazing that this thread still goes on and in that way. Not only because Nr9 stated nothing but the obvious trend in CPU industry, but also because of his rude and offensive manner when address the others here and his unusual level of negativism. A big NO from me.
post #173 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
Sun just announced the UltraSparc IV+...

More Info,

Codenamed "Panther" the US IV+ will be available in mid 2005 and will _start_ at 1.8 GHz and move past 2 GHz later on. It seems to me, and obviously TI too, that 90 nm won't have to be the head ache that it's been for others. Pretty bold statements though considering what happened to the competition.
post #174 of 297
At the end of the day you really haven't said much here that hasn't been pretty well known for quite some time and you have consistently failed to go into any form of technical detail, Nr9. Even Intel acknowledged long ago power usage was getting too high. What nobody planned on was that leakage would jump so much at the 90 nm process. Every other company except Intel had multi-core plans for the 90 nm process and even Intel had them for the 65 nm process simply because they needed something to do with the transistors.

All that has really been realised lately is scaling is now hard but that has been pretty obvious given Intel's tearing up their old roadmaps.

Nothing you've said makes me think you have any inside knowledge at all and in fact much of what you've said is publicly available from journals or conference papers. In fact most is available from enthusiast sites and possible to make up claims for.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
Right, do you even have an enginnering degree? You don't understand that unless you go to a liberal arts university, you dont need to write much do you?

Chemical in fact so process engineering and design is my business I'm guessing you however don't, or if you do you're most certainly very junior (I started serious reports that went beyond the mathematics of a problem in 2nd year so that'd make you 1st if that).

If ever you actually get into process design or any form of substantial project work, which most engineering is, you will spend your life in reports and presentations. It's how you convince managers that your ideas are not only technically feasible but worth carrying out. For instance in 3 weeks time I'll submit a feasibility study for a piece of equipment that'll equate to around 600 pages, excluding appendices (done by a team of 5). Everything from the economics, environmental impacts, OH&S, operating procedures, staffing, and detailed outlines of the equipment.

Around 60 - 70% of it is spent discussing the problem definition and key aspects of concern and assumptions and why the technical discussion and your ideas are actually worth the paper they're written on. That's engineering. If you aren't writing reports on your work then you aren't doing much of substance and nobody much cares about your work Engineers write reports, and management write more, just a fact of life. If all you can do is crunch numbers then you're next to useless as an engineer these days. Computers can solve mathematics these days so engineering has moved far more towards interpretation and proper methodologies of problem solving and analysis. All of which requires a good ability to communicate, particularly with the less technically minded. Just wait until you have to work with some community groups
"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...
"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...
post #175 of 297
I think Telomar just made Nr9 look like Sen. John Edwards did last night.

Waaay out of his league.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
post #176 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I mean, if Intel gets to 3.* GHZ at 90nm and IBM gets to 2.5+ GHZ then I would have to say 2.5 GHZ isn't the 90nm barrier Nr9 is claiming.

No, there is no exact number to qualify as an absolute limit. What we're talking about is that crazy overclockers can make PPC970fx run at, say, 5GHz right now, but only in a can of liquid Nitrogen. Since IBM won't even consider shipping insanely overclocked chips, it roughly equals IBM having stuck at 2.5GHz. They may reach 3GHz or so for mass production of PPC970fx, but they are still having problems producing them even at 2.5GHz in quantities sufficient for Apple. You know what I mean: if those 3GHz chips turn out to be too hot, too few or too expensive, it will be just as though IBM haven't made a single chip running at 3GHz. Nobody gives a damn about a theoretical clock speed of a given chip - it only matters what clock speed the chip is running at on your desktop.
Quote:
There are obviously a number of factors that are involved that allow such a wide range of speeds across many different 90nm chips.

Yes, there are too many factors, only some of which relate to engineering (like materials, process, fab cleanness, design/process tweaking, etc.). There are also economical issues, like cost, profit, contracts you can't break, etc. And there are marketing issues, like pressure from sales guys, the urge to be the first, the need to be the best, etc.

History knows some examples when products were manufactured at a planned loss, or only to suppress competitors, or only to keep a customer happy. There are too many questions to ask, but what I want to know is what IBM engineers are doing to increase the performance/power ratio of 970fx right now. If it is not already obsolete in terms of further improvements.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
post #177 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I think Telomar just made Nr9 look like Sen. John Edwards did last night.

Waaay out of his league.

But not quite as bad as Dubya on Thursday.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
post #178 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
If all you can do is crunch numbers then you're next to useless as an engineer these days. Computers can solve mathematics these days so engineering has moved far more towards interpretation and proper methodologies of problem solving and analysis. All of which requires a good ability to communicate, particularly with the less technically minded. Just wait until you have to work with some community groups

computers can't decide theories

im sorry you have to work in that kind of environment
i work in a research group and everyone around me knows what im talkign about
post #179 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
i work in a research group and everyone around me knows what im talkign about

Nr9... MISTER IBM, the most misunderstood person around the world
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
post #180 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
Nr9... MISTER IBM, the most misunderstood person around the world

Well, you may find it funny, I admit. But still: has Nr9 said anything so outrageously stupid that people like you mock him through 4 (FOUR!) pages of the thread?! You either believe or not, you either agree or argue, but why laugh like mad? Am I missing something?
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
post #181 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by costique
Well, you may find it funny, I admit. But still: has Nr9 said anything so outrageously stupid that people like you mock him through 4 (FOUR!) pages of the thread?! You either believe or not, you either agree or argue, but why laugh like mad? Am I missing something?

What's about his Ars-Technica account... you get the idea
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
post #182 of 297
In more news..Transmeta is preparing to launch a 90 nm Efficeon @ 2 GHz in 2005, manufactured by Fujitsu. They already deliver a 90 nm TM8800 at 1.6 GHz so it's an increase of 25% on the current fab, and a 54% increase from its former 1.3 GHz processors at 130 nm.

So.. a run down. What gains are we seeing when moving from 130 to 90 nm.
My figures might not be entirely correct though.
Intel: 3.4 -> 3.6 = 6%
AMD: 2.4 -> 2.6 = 8%
IBM: 2 -> 2.5 = 25%
Freescale: 1.42 -> 1.5+ (1.8?) = 27%
Sun/TI: 1.2 -> 1.8 = 50%
Transmeta/Fujitsu: 1.3 -> 2 = 54%

Granted.. Freescale and TI havn't delivered anything yet, but Fujitsu have and they seem pretty optimistic. Someone asked for current evidence that the industry still sees some hope from any 90 nm fab. So far.. I've given you thee examples: Freescale, TI and Fujitsu.
post #183 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
In more news..Transmeta is preparing to launch a 90 nm Efficeon @ 2 GHz in 2005, manufactured by Fujitsu. They already deliver a 90 nm TM8800 at 1.6 GHz so it's an increase of 25% on the current fab, and a 54% increase from its former 1.3 GHz processors at 130 nm.

So.. a run down. What gains are we seeing when moving from 130 to 90 nm.
My figures might not be entirely correct though.
Intel: 3.4 -> 3.6 = 6%
AMD: 2.4 -> 2.6 = 8%
IBM: 2 -> 2.5 = 25%
Freescale: 1.42 -> 1.5+ (1.8?) = 27%
Sun/TI: 1.2 -> 1.8 = 50%
Transmeta/Fujitsu: 1.3 -> 2 = 54%

Granted.. Freescale and TI havn't delivered anything yet, but Fujitsu have and they seem pretty optimistic. Someone asked for current evidence that the industry still sees some hope from any 90 nm fab. So far.. I've given you thee examples: Freescale, TI and Fujitsu.

Yeah, but look at the target speeds for the big jumps ... 2 GHz or less. What this says to me is that, depending on the processor design, trouble starts in the mid-2 GHz range and gets very rapidly worse. This is not a linear problem, and there is no single magical number that is a "wall" or "barrier". Different design tradeoffs result in different speed/power characteristics, but starting in the 2.5 - 3 GHz range there is a dramatic increase in the power/frequency curve. In a sense this is good news for the slow guys because they'll catch up now, but the fast guys are already looking for a way to stay at the head of the pack.

Several years ago the CPU designers were predicting the speeds they would be at a couple of years down the road. For a long time these predictions and plans have been quite accurate. In some cases they just haven't been public knowledge. The most notable exception I can think of is Motorola and the original G4 -- that's why they were such a laughing stock. In the last year, however, these plans and predictions have fallen flat on their face and now everybody is scrambling around trying to find alternatives and solutions.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #184 of 297
... and so Moto/Freescale looks prescient for deemphasizing Hz and working almost exclusively on power consumption for the last couple of years. All of a sudden they're sitting pretty at 1.5GHz, with room to grow.

Whodathunkit?
"...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!
"...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!
post #185 of 297
If N9r is really working at IBM, I think we know the reason the 970fx won't scale faster than 2.5ghz!

N9r. Quit, so we can get faster Macs!!!!!
post #186 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
computers can't decide theories

im sorry you have to work in that kind of environment
i work in a research group and everyone around me knows what im talkign about

Um... wrong.

Otter from Argonne National Labs is a top notch automated theorem prover that has successfully demonstrated proofs for no less than three previously unproven and *unknown* relationships in group theory.

The ATP research area is starting to really take off. Can they prove *anything*? No. Are they really freaking amazing little tools that can greatly assist human theoreticians? Oh heck yes. I use Otter almost daily.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
post #187 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Um... wrong.

Otter from Argonne National Labs is a top notch automated theorem prover that has successfully demonstrated proofs for no less than three previously unproven and *unknown* relationships in group theory.

The ATP research area is starting to really take off. Can they prove *anything*? No. Are they really freaking amazing little tools that can greatly assist human theoreticians? Oh heck yes. I use Otter almost daily.

i am talking about the general case. of course computers can prove some theories (including trivial ones). there are some stuff that computers can't do, number theory is undecidable by reduction from halting problem(unless maybe there is hope for quantum shit to break from Turing machine model)

if you say we dont need technical expertise anymore because of ATPs i can also say we don't need english writers because there are programs that can write shit.
post #188 of 297
hackles.down()

Chill.

Saying that communication skills are unneeded or less than important in the engineering fields is ludicrous. Everyone communicates, whether it is with your teammates, your managers, your students, or your colleagues. Everyone.

Maybe it's not *your* strength, I'd hazard, but some of us find it absolutely essential to the technical processes, including research and education.

Bottom line: without strong communication skills, both spoken and written, your career and your contributions will be severely curtailed. Period.

Only a highly narrow-minded engineer would claim that communication skills are redundant or a waste in technical fields. In actuality, they are absolutely essential... otherwise, you're just wasting your time doing mental masturbation on someone else's dollar.

And just to drive the point home... ever hear of Fred Brooks? If you're at IBM, try asking around. He was the lead designer on the System/360 project that turned IBM into the powerhouse of the 60s and 70s. (They *STILL* sell the bloody thing.)

He also founded the CS dept here at UNC.

Guess what one his personal additions to the PhD requirements was? A little class called "Technical Communications", which he still personally teaches. Guess what you do? Learn to write essays, reports, whitepapers, articles, letters, grants, and also give speeches, from notetaking to presentation styles, to what to do when the projector bulb burns out halfway through. He's thorough. He's also one of the most successful engineers, as measured by contributions to the state of the art, education, and general field. Don't take my word for it though, he won the Turing Award.

Clear communication is as essential, if not more so, in the technical fields as in literary ones. There, you can fudge it and people think it's artistically deep. You don't get that leeway in technical communication.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
post #189 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9

worrying about english gets in the way of doing the real technical stuff with the most efficiency possible. there is no free lunch. energy you spend constructing your sentences can be used for your technical engineering shit.


You are so wrong. I tried it and I learned the hard way. Anyone around Febuary 2, 2004 would know.
post #190 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Bottom line: without strong communication skills, both spoken and written, your career and your contributions will be severely curtailed. Period.

I can't contest enough of how true this is in ANY engineering field. Without communication engineering would cease to exist.

Nr9, if you graduated from ANY reputable school / program you would know this (if you truly are an engineer). The fact that you just said
Quote:
worrying about english gets in the way of doing the real technical stuff with the most efficiency possible. there is no free lunch. energy you spend constructing your sentences can be used for your technical engineering shit.

made me lose ALL SHRED of respect or belief in any point you may have. If you admit you aren't in the engineering field and don't have a engineer related degree I'll start paying attention to you again. That statement alone shows you have been lying.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

post #191 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
computers can't decide theories

im sorry you have to work in that kind of environment
i work in a research group and everyone around me knows what im talkign about

No but if you're deciding theories for a computer you must spell out the assumptions and processes in a report so the work can be checked. Reproducibility is a must in research, as I'm sure you'd know working in a research group As an aside though I've been there, done that too, albeit for the worst six months of my life, and I'm guessing you don't get a great deal of funding

Nobody with any engineering experience is not going to side with you on this one. People that can't communicate don't ever sell their ideas and they certainly don't move out of the lower rungs. To get decent marks in engineering universities expect you can get the technical merits right and differentiate their students in most cases on the differences of how they present their arguments and methods of working to the final solution.

Technically minded engineers really are a dime a dozen and most companies, especially IBM, look for better. As an aside I've been with IBM so I also know they value communication skills very highly. Whether it is publishing or reports they are demanding. Excuse me if I scoff a bit at your claim you're working for them

I will give you one thing, the topic of processors no longer scaling and movements in the ideas driving performance are interesting ones so I'm not sorry you posted it. Anybody who thinks you have inside knowledge is kidding themselves though. I actually really look forward to what the next year or two will bring, particularly technologies like Cell, which you must know all about being at IBM
"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...
"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...
post #192 of 297
Thread Starter 
that is not the case in current education
my school is a prestigious university where a lot of the people in electrical engineering and computer science are from eastern europe, india, or far east asia and everyone has piss poor english communication skills.

there is only one technical communication course requirement out of a 4 year curriculum. anyone can fake having good english for one semester. or fake good english for an essay for an apitutde test.

design documents have very little prose and is mostly pseudocode and equations.

if you go to a top ranked graduate school and look at the computer science department, you can't understand what half of the people are saying. Most of the time its the european accent.

Go read cutting edge papers about computer science. Chances are that it is not in clear, coherent english. Hell, even read a graduate level textbook. It won't be in good english.

Look at : http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/access.html

most are pretty bad english.
post #193 of 297
We're back on topic, yeah! 8)
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
post #194 of 297
If communication has anything to do with IMPACT, or stirring response then Nr9 wins hands down.
As to validity, well his terse statements have gone from so wrong to so right they're trivial - to quote Telomar - "you really haven't said much here that hasn't been pretty well known for quite some time"; that's after 4 pages of "Nr9 is soo wrong...".
Excellent subject tho, & some excellent info/responses from among others Telomar, Programmer. Thanx all, i find the "wall hitting" fascinating & think that IBM's inability to meet Job's 3GHz prediction speaks volumes.
But then i've often been bemused by the vehemence of attacks on posters & of course Motorola. who are perhaps now looking slightly clever?
post #195 of 297
Can I just bring something back to square one, for a sec... We are talking about NR9's credibility, right? So let me ask of NR9 this: Tell us one small nugget that you know to be forthcoming and true. Like, for example, when the new eMac is coming out and what its specs are...when an iPod rev is coming and what its specs are...let's see you get something right. The problem with your assertions is that you haven't yet proved your an insider. If you wish to make these claims that you have insider knowledge that the Power Mac G5 has peaked at 2.5GHz and won't go any higher, you have to have a track record to run on, and right now you are the laughing stock of this board because it lacks credibility.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
post #196 of 297
Thread Starter 
haha im not sad that you don't believe me
post #197 of 297
I thought he is working for IBM
I think he know nothing about the eMac or the iPod.

Lets talk about the "CELL"

Oh wait Mr. 007 has signed a NDA, right?
I see!
What a bummer!

Come on! I make the first step:

C = thrid letter of the alphabet

Now it's your turn
Surprise me with some inside informations!

Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
post #198 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by kwikfx
& of course Motorola. who are perhaps now looking slightly clever?

That is stretching it, a bit I think.



This isn't the right thread for a discussion on communications skills, so let's try to stay on topic.



One comment about Cell: one advantage of taking a (relatively) clean slate approach is that the designer can simply omit things that conventional design has demonstrated are expensive and/or limiting. This is especially true for specialized cores like the vector cores likely to be found in the Cell chip. Perhaps the main core will run at a slower speed because it has full conventional functionality, but the vector cores will be able to run much faster because they carefully avoided bottlenecks and performance-gating design features. They've already decided to break software compatiblity, so why not take maximum advantage of it. Intel can run Prescott's adder unit at double the base clock rate because it doesn't include certain elements that slow things down -- Cell could do something similar but on even a larger scale. In some sense IBM/Motorola/Apple design AltiVec with the same concept in mind: those vector instructions were heavily influenced by what could be implemented with 1 instruction/clock throughput. The x86 ISA, on the other hand, is filled with overly complex instructions so the first thing Intel and AMD do is bust them apart into pieces designed to be rapidly executable. Apparently one of these things in the Cell is cache... its vector cores won't have any. As a result of this from-scratch approach, Cell may be able to deliver clock rates well in excess of what conventional designs have achieved (much like Prescott's 7+ GHz adder unit).


The notion that the speed limit is defined in part by the design seems to be lost on some. Consider, as an analogy, the top speed of ground cars. The fastest one in existence achieved just over Mach 1. Is it useful? Could they sell it to the mass market consumer? No. For practical applications the maximum speed of virtually all automobiles is around 150-200 mph. There are lots of factors (aerodynamics, horsepower, gearing, weight, etc) that go into what a particular car's maximum speed is, but aside from the legal limit there is no hard-and-fast maximum. The fastest car isn't the "best" car for 99.9999+% of the drivers out there -- for most people other factors are far more important (gas mileage, carrying capacity, looks, cost, maintenance, reliability, brand name, comfort, etc). If your definition of "fastest" is which vehicle can deliver the largest number of people to a destination in a fixed amount of time, then your 2 seater sports coupe is not going to be the fastest. How processors (and many other things) are engineered has many parallels to this.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #199 of 297
Programmer, have you ever considered becoming a teacher? If not, you should. Seriously.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
post #200 of 297
Getting back on track.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
The latest news.

Power Mac will be stuck at rougly 2.5GHz for the next 3 years.

This is a known fact.

It's not a known fact, at least not here. IBM has yet to introduce any one of a number of low-k dialectrics in the 970. IBM has yet to introduce Strained Silicon Directly on Insulator. Both of which will allow significant speed increases in the current 970 architecture if they so desire.

What your saying would mean that these technologies are not and will not ever be applicable to a 0.09µm design, maybe, but I'm betting they will appear on 0.09µm and smaller.


Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
The next power mac are 2.5GHz multicore designs.

I say the next G5 will not be multicore, but will include a low-k dialectric and will either run cooler and/or faster at the same power consumption of the current 2.5 GHz G5.


Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
powerbook will use motorola embedded devices because they have a better future (all chip designers now are shifting from raw speed to power consumption as their main focus)

For laptops this is a safe bet, however, I'm not willing to catagorically state that the powerbook will retain a Motorola cpu. I flatly don't know.

Yes, eventually a wall will be reached, but not at 0.09µm. When it is reached hopefully other technologies will have been developed to continue increasing clock speeds.
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...........
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...........
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › power mac won't get any faster