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 7  

post #241 of 297
How about just importing C to Objective C... now you have all the cocoa threading libraries at the palm of your hand...

 

 

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 #242 of 297
Well it's time I put my 2¢ into this thing. I fully believe Nr9 is wrong. All we have hit is a decent size wall that takes a little longer to climb over, it's happened before and will happen again. We are however starting to see the end of huge Ghz increases, I still think we can make it to at least 4 Ghz (referring it IBM) but more is not impossible. It's going to require some creative thinking and will probably take a few years to get there but it will eventually happen. In the mean time to keep things going up they will keep sticking cores on them and shipping them out. I'm really glad this is happening though it's finally going to get programmers to realize the benefits of multi threaded apps, Apple has been there a long time but the Windoze side of the industry needs to catch up in my opinion. (No offense to all the programmers in the audience, I hope to join you in a few years). Hopefully a replacement for transistors will be into production before we hit the wall of all walls, whether it's quantum computers or something else.
post #243 of 297
Finally the thread is talking about hardware again.

Nr9 is not my concern. I could care less if he worked at IBM, or Burger King. Either way what he said was preposterous. Nobody with an innovative mind could agree with a word of his pessimism. Everything evolves eventually.

Although I must say I don't think that 4GHz is anywhere near the immediate agenda. 3.2GHz is overly optimistic at this juncture IMO. Maybe by WWDC 2005, or What used to be MWNY 2005 we will something close to 3.2, but I'm not counting on it.
I do expect to see Dual Core not as an immediate, or next update (although I'd love to see it) but probably in the following update.

The G6 may be where we can actually see some serious improvements.
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 #244 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Nobody with an innovative mind could agree with a word of his pessimism. Everything evolves eventually.

The G6 may be where we can actually see some serious improvements.

Agreed ....

But don't you think the g6 is pretty far off . I mean there might not even be a g6... who knows. There might "probably" won't be a pentium 5... instead it is called what?

 

 

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 #245 of 297
The Product is currently implmented the old way due to time constraints. Of course, now it's done it would probably have been faster and easier to build it from scratch, using our nice XML derived structures. Maybe for v2.

How much of a gain is the lack of cache in Cell's vector units? I suppose that SIMD often comes in streams, so data is just "passing through".
Stoo
Stoo
post #246 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Ugh. Are you ignoring me, or just not getting it?

I'm just very literal, and the claim made in the original post in this thread (even the implied claim) is incorrect in my opinion.
"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 #247 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by costique
I'm not defending Nr9, but it's possible and quite believable. I can imagine the situation like this:

I'm neither defending nor supporting Nr9, I just think he is either misunderstanding something or being mislead.
Quote:

When IBM got 2.5GHz chips and realized that they're too hot (they may still be acceptably hot for IBM, but Steve said he's not buying chips any hotter), this instantly became a limitation #1. IBM engineers then had 2 big headaches: low yields and high power dissipation.

IBM has a problem but I see it as pushing to 90nm to fast and with too little innovation. IBM has pretty much demonstrated that they aren't ready to be a merchant supplier of processor chips. As far as the 970 and the 970FX neither chip could be considered an outstanding performer thermally.

With the current FX problems, people seem to forget there was a lot of SMOKE & MIRRORS with respect to the thermal performance of the 970. The question is simply this, is the thermal profile of the 970 industry leading with respect to computational performance. I would have to say that it is not so IBM clearly has room to grow in.
Quote:
They worked on these and managed to improve yields somehow. However, better yields are money today while better power consumption is money tomorrow. They tried and tried and tried and yes, they have 3+GHz chips right now, which are either too few for a customer like Apple, or too hot for showmen like Steve, or just too unreliable in the long term. IBM can tweak the process more, of course, to squeeze a couple of MHz without sacrificing the far-from-excellent yields, but...

IBM can tweak the process, that is pretty much assumed. To make the gains they really need though they need to change to a revised 90nm process.
Quote:
The dual-core version got so much closer during this struggle that it's probably more economically effective to launch PPC970MP now, than to delay it until they perfect the process so that you can stick a 3.5GHz PPC970FX into a pocket PC.

The MP is an interesting thought. Unless IBM can improve the thermal profile though the chip will be running extremely hot for a desktop PC. Think about possibly 140 watts or more. I suspect that the MP will be built on an improved 90nm process with that process eventually migrating back to the single core chips.
Quote:

This does not mean we'll never see a PowerPC running at more than 2.5GHz. This only means that we may see a dual-core before the painful transition to 90nm culminates in higher clock rates.

As long as people realize that dual core is a solution to another problem we should be OK.
Quote:
This only means that IBM engineers may find it easier and quicker to launch a dual-core 970 than to mass-produce any PPC at, say, 3GHz with their current technology.

The MP will come onto the market because it has to. That is there will be a very rapid migration to multiprocessing in the computing world due to one very important reality. That reality is that it is now possible to place more than one core on a die and remain economical. As I see it dual cores really have nothing to do with the current thermal and Hz limits. Multiprocessing is simply a way to make good use of the die space available to todays designers.
Quote:
And this does not mean IBM suddenly stops maturing the process in favour of dual-core designs, because this same process (if I'm not totally off) will help them make faster both single and dual cores until they switch to 65nm. And if they do switch to 65nm in the near future is an 'if'.

What do you think?

I don't really think there is a big delta between what I suspect will happen and what you suspect will happen. The MP can be seen as introducing 90nm rev2 and much better thermal profiles. I expect this technology to be quickly applied to a laptop processor as it will allow acceptable battery lifetimes.
post #248 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
I'm neither defending nor supporting Nr9, I just think he is either misunderstanding something or being mislead.

IBM has a problem but I see it as pushing to 90nm to fast and with too little innovation. IBM has pretty much demonstrated that they aren't ready to be a merchant supplier of processor chips. As far as the 970 and the 970FX neither chip could be considered an outstanding performer thermally.

With the current FX problems, people seem to forget there was a lot of SMOKE & MIRRORS with respect to the thermal performance of the 970. The question is simply this, is the thermal profile of the 970 industry leading with respect to computational performance. I would have to say that it is not so IBM clearly has room to grow in.

IBM can tweak the process, that is pretty much assumed. To make the gains they really need though they need to change to a revised 90nm process.

The MP is an interesting thought. Unless IBM can improve the thermal profile though the chip will be running extremely hot for a desktop PC. Think about possibly 140 watts or more. I suspect that the MP will be built on an improved 90nm process with that process eventually migrating back to the single core chips.

As long as people realize that dual core is a solution to another problem we should be OK.

The MP will come onto the market because it has to. That is there will be a very rapid migration to multiprocessing in the computing world due to one very important reality. That reality is that it is now possible to place more than one core on a die and remain economical. As I see it dual cores really have nothing to do with the current thermal and Hz limits. Multiprocessing is simply a way to make good use of the die space available to todays designers.


I don't really think there is a big delta between what I suspect will happen and what you suspect will happen. The MP can be seen as introducing 90nm rev2 and much better thermal profiles. I expect this technology to be quickly applied to a laptop processor as it will allow acceptable battery lifetimes.

I think you are misunderstanding something. dual cores have everything to do with current thermal and hz limits. this is the whole subject of dr. meyerson's keynote at the fall processor forum this week. your guesses at what will hapen with the chip industry are wrong. why don't you try to design a faster chip. im tellin u, its impossible.
post #249 of 297
Surely you aren't suggesting Bernard Meyerson is smarter than the brain trust that is AI!
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
post #250 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9 I think you are misunderstanding something. dual cores have everything to do with current thermal and hz limits. this is the whole subject of dr. meyerson's keynote at the fall processor forum this week. your guesses at what will hapen with the chip industry are wrong. why don't you try to design a faster chip. im tellin u, its impossible.

Look Nr9 your statement that it is impossible is simply to absolute to be respected. Either give it up or stop posting as your are wearing a little thin on credibility.

If you have half the experience in the industry you claim to have, you would realize that the current thermal limits are the result of the process that the chips are built on. To indicate that it is impossible to get better thermal performance is to imply that current process technology is static. Everyone here knows that is not the case.

Finally; why would I have to design a chip myself when many products are being delivered that have gotten considerable benefit from the move to 90nm? Should I just ignore the Hz increase TI, Fujitsu and others have gotten with their transistion to 90nm? The point is the shrink to 90nm has lead to much faster processors from vendors other than IBM.

You are also rather mistaken with respect to dual core technology. The industry would have gone this route long before if it where economical to do so. The issue was that for a long time there was plenty of room to get significnat payoff from modest growth in the complexity of a single core. Cores today have matured to the point where getting that payoff is much more difficult, you get better results from simply installing another core on the chip. After the transition to dual core the industry will still have to up clock frequency to continue to ramp performance at a given feature size. Either that or the addition of special function units to the cores will be implemented.

Many intelligent men have made mistakes with respect to their respective knowledge bases. Hopefully not all of the PPC industry will latch on to these negative thoughts. If this ends up being the case, we may very well be entering into another period of darkness with respect to the rest of the industry. It is like the Motorola problem all over again! Even Motorola was able to over come their 500MHz limit and road blocks after that. If IBM wants to throw in the towel then I suspect they will end up loosing much respect within the industry.

thanks
Dave
post #251 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Look Nr9 your statement that it is impossible is simply to absolute to be respected. Either give it up or stop posting as your are wearing a little thin on credibility.

If you have half the experience in the industry you claim to have, you would realize that the current thermal limits are the result of the process that the chips are built on. To indicate that it is impossible to get better thermal performance is to imply that current process technology is static. Everyone here knows that is not the case.

Finally; why would I have to design a chip myself when many products are being delivered that have gotten considerable benefit from the move to 90nm? Should I just ignore the Hz increase TI, Fujitsu and others have gotten with their transistion to 90nm? The point is the shrink to 90nm has lead to much faster processors from vendors other than IBM.

You are also rather mistaken with respect to dual core technology. The industry would have gone this route long before if it where economical to do so. The issue was that for a long time there was plenty of room to get significnat payoff from modest growth in the complexity of a single core. Cores today have matured to the point where getting that payoff is much more difficult, you get better results from simply installing another core on the chip. After the transition to dual core the industry will still have to up clock frequency to continue to ramp performance at a given feature size. Either that or the addition of special function units to the cores will be implemented.

Many intelligent men have made mistakes with respect to their respective knowledge bases. Hopefully not all of the PPC industry will latch on to these negative thoughts. If this ends up being the case, we may very well be entering into another period of darkness with respect to the rest of the industry. It is like the Motorola problem all over again! Even Motorola was able to over come their 500MHz limit and road blocks after that. If IBM wants to throw in the towel then I suspect they will end up loosing much respect within the industry.

thanks
Dave

you're dumb. not only you ignore what i have to say, but you also ignore what dr. meyerson has to say. you dont even know anything about the current state of industry and you say im mistaken. when you get to 90nm, your gate oxide is about 6 atoms thick, and quality is very hard to control at 6 atoms thick. no matter what you are going to get a lot of leakge. process scaling is at a dead end, everyone in the industry knows thats the case.
post #252 of 297
It would be rather shortsighted for anybody to take the views of anyone man as absolute knowledge. At least the views of any man walking earth today. It is not that anyone here considers the "brain trust that is AI" to be a force to be admired, it is simply that there is more to innovation than intelligence of anyone person.

Up until a few days ago it was accepted that diamond was the hardest material known to man. Now it is known that we can fabricate even harder materials. Should the researchers who accomplished this have given up on their quest because some other respected person thought it was impossible?

Mr Meyerson may very well believe what he is saying, but that does not mean that his opinions need to be guidance for every other researcher out there. The whole problem with this discusion is that there is evidence today that other manufactures are doing much better with respect to 90nm and scaling frequency. It does bring into question just what is the motivation behind the declared wall -- is it an admission on IBM's part that they simply don't have the technology yet to do better?

The way people have been talking in this thread you would expect that we will never see a low power 970 for use in a portable. Does everybody here think that IBM gave up on low power devices also?

Thanks
Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by murk
Surely you aren't suggesting Bernard Meyerson is smarter than the brain trust that is AI!
post #253 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
The way people have been talking in this thread you would expect that we will never see a low power 970 for use in a portable. Does everybody here think that IBM gave up on low power devices also?

Who said that? I certainly haven't. Power dissapation at high clock rates is not the same thing as at low clock rates. The problems at 90nm seem to be the high clock rate parts, while the power profiles of low clock rates seem to be getting good results and have the potential to improve as the processes are refined. Its not clear that those results will map to significant high frequency improvements.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #254 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
you're dumb. not only you ignore what i have to say, but you also ignore what dr. meyerson has to say. you dont even know anything about the current state of industry and you say im mistaken.

Who is ingnoring you? If that was the case I wouldn't have responded at all. What I'm saying is that the current state of the industry as you describe it, does not represent the industry as a whole.
Quote:
when you get to 90nm, your gate oxide is about 6 atoms thick, and quality is very hard to control at 6 atoms thick. no matter what you are going to get a lot of leakge. process scaling is at a dead end, everyone in the industry knows thats the case.

I really don't know what to say here, if this was the case then why is so much research effort being put into 90nm and why even bother with 65nm? It is a given that those issues will have to be controlled at 65nm or you won't have a process to begin with. Or atleast a process that results in a thermally manageable device.

The big question for you though, is why have some manufactures successfully scaled product? If it wasn't for this I'd give much more credibility to your statments.

Dave
post #255 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
you're dumb. not only you ignore what i have to say, but you also ignore what dr. meyerson has to say. you dont even know anything about the current state of industry and you say im mistaken. when you get to 90nm, your gate oxide is about 6 atoms thick, and quality is very hard to control at 6 atoms thick. no matter what you are going to get a lot of leakge. process scaling is at a dead end, everyone in the industry knows thats the case.

The convulsively attempt to obtain acceptance...

Nr9, the man who played bullshit-bingo

Where are the inside informations
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
post #256 of 297
You haven't said anything like that at all Programmer nor would I expect you to. What I was trying to get at is that some people posting here seem to believe that their is no room for improvement at 90nm and that process scaling is dead.

First, I don't believe that anybody has given up on development at 90nm. That is with respect to anything related to the feature size be in manufacturablity, static power, dynamic power or any other parameter.

With respect to clock rates, as one scaling measurement, it does appear that some manufactures are doing fine with this. The issue seems to be IBM related more than anything. Remember that the 970, on 130nm, started out as a very hot processor for its performance point when introduced. The 90nm transisiton did lower the chips power point but it is still relatively hot, it is not surprising at all that only a modest %Hz increase was obtained due to thermal problems.

As far as the potential for improvement, that is exactly what I was getting at. I expect that IBM is working on low power devices through process improvments or changes to new proecess. The difference is that I also expect IBM to be doing the same thing with respect to ultimate clock rate. I just have a hard time accepting the position, of some on this board, that scaling (anyway you measure it) is dead at 90nm or that people are no longer developing technology for this feature size. As far as mapping improvements to anyone parameter, what is to preven multiple improvements targeted at different parameters?

It is just a little to early for me to accept that 2.5GHz is that best that can be had with the 970. Maybe that is the best that can be had with IBM's current 90nm process but that doesn't imply that there isn't the possibility for process improvement. I'm not sure anybody knows how far the current 970 can clock given the elimination of thermal problems. At some point the design of the 970 itself will limit clockrate but I don't think that is an issue at all now.


Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Who said that? I certainly haven't. Power dissapation at high clock rates is not the same thing as at low clock rates. The problems at 90nm seem to be the high clock rate parts, while the power profiles of low clock rates seem to be getting good results and have the potential to improve as the processes are refined. Its not clear that those results will map to significant high frequency improvements.
post #257 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Who is ingnoring you? If that was the case I wouldn't have responded at all. What I'm saying is that the current state of the industry as you describe it, does not represent the industry as a whole.

I really don't know what to say here, if this was the case then why is so much research effort being put into 90nm and why even bother with 65nm? It is a given that those issues will have to be controlled at 65nm or you won't have a process to begin with. Or atleast a process that results in a thermally manageable device.

The big question for you though, is why have some manufactures successfully scaled product? If it wasn't for this I'd give much more credibility to your statments.

Dave

it does represent the industry as a whole.

because they want to have a less shitty 90nm process than a shitty one. manufacturer that successfully scale product aren't as high frequency or high power density

scaling is dead. its a fact.
post #258 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
scaling is dead. its a fact.

This is simply not true.
"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 #259 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
it does represent the industry as a whole.

because they want to have a less shitty 90nm process than a shitty one. manufacturer that successfully scale product aren't as high frequency or high power density

scaling is dead. its a fact.

What professional talks like this when explaining something technical? So what are you going to do when IBM scales the 2.5 up? Can we ban your ip from this site?

 

 

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 #260 of 297
the growth area is in laptops, intel, ibm moto are hitting a wall with speed , heat and battery life. how to max battery life. which setup would max battery life. a slower dual core or a more efficient single gore. my .9 ibook is fast enough for internet and word processing, i want more battery life on any laptop. battery tech is also at a wall, so which way to the dream machine.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
post #261 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
What professional talks like this when explaining something technical? So what are you going to do when IBM scales the 2.5 up? Can we ban your ip from this site?

*signed*
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
post #262 of 297
Nr9, none of this is new--except your twisted interpretation of it.

John Spooner, CNET News June 8, 04
From the first article to deflate Nr9's assessment of what Dr Myerson has been saying for quite some time
Quote:
(Reporter)Does that mean performance stops?
(Myerson)It means that the rate of performance enhancement is becoming impacted.

Tom Krazit, IDG News Svc Oct 6, 04

From the second article to utterly crush Nr9's assessment of what Dr Myerson said last week
Quote:
Transistors will continue to shrink, Meyerson said.

IBM, Intel and other chip companies are steadfast in their determination to shrink process technology generations every two to three years. But recent chipmaking innovations such as strained silicon and silicon-on-insulator technology will grow more important with each successive process generation shrink and technologies such as virtualisation will become widespread, he said.

"There are trajectories forward that are enormously promising," Meyerson said.

As anyone who can see or who has followed any of this, Dr Myerson has been saying the same thing for near a year now, His most recent keynote address just put it in front of the largest audience to date. He has not said there are no more Hz anymore, he has not said scaling is dead; he has said a free lunch path described by Moore's law is no longer realistic or valid. Costs to follow that path are beginning to escalate and in the near future (he didn't say today or yesterday or last spring) it will make better business sense to look for performance gains in other areas.

IBM would not be attempting continued process shrinks if there were no performance gains to be expected. Period. Nr9's primary and possible only source has directly contradicted the main premise of Nr9's statements, that there are no more scaling gains to be made-ever.

Pretty simple really. That leaves us with the same set of realities we have known all along. It is becoming more difficult to scale and industry must begin preparations for the point scaling via feature size becomes prohibitively expensive. Nothing new there, and nothing at all like the errantly definitive statements we have been refuting all 7 pages so far.

Just stop Nr9. You're wrong.

We consistently have technical opinions and both primary (interview) and secondary (coverage of the keynote) sources that corroborate that. You SIGARCH bluff was called as well with nothing at all to help you case there. From here on out I think everyone can unconditionally and safely accept that scaling didn't die in March 2004 with the advent of the 970FX.
post #263 of 297
Thread Starter 
look, he said that cuz he doesnt want to scare away investors and possibly to scare competitors. the fact is, scaling is dead. on the article you linked is called "Chip industry needs a 'Plan B" process technology-wise, plan B does not exist, plan B is multicore. CMOS is at a dead end just like bipolar was a couple of years ago. problem is, there is no real alternative in sight.

anyone actually click on the article that airsluf links and look at it and see what its talking about?

"The days of relying on shrinking transistors to achieve performance gains were over, and the chip industry needed to enter a new era of innovation where system-level features were just as important as thinner transistor gates, vice-president and chief technologist at IBM's Systems and Technology Group, Bernie Meyerson, has told the Fall Processor Forum in a keynote address."

"Chips were now so small that atom-level defects on a silicon chip could cause power leakage up to 100 times the normal level, he said."
post #264 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
What I was trying to get at is that some people posting here seem to believe that their is no room for improvement at 90nm and that process scaling is dead.

Careful, you're over-generalizing the statements -- frequency scaling has hit a wall. That doesn't mean that smaller transistors aren't possible, nor does it mean that there isn't benefit to be gained from them. A 65nm transistor at 2 GHz is still more useful than a 130nm or 90nm transistor at 2 GHz.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #265 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
frequency scaling has hit a wall. That doesn't mean that smaller transistors aren't possible, nor does it mean that there isn't benefit to be gained from them. A 65nm transistor at 2 GHz is still more useful than a 130nm or 90nm transistor at 2 GHz.

For the most part that's what I got from it as well.
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 #266 of 297
I disagree with nr9, and suggest people judge for
themselves. A good place to start is the International
Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.

http://public.itrs.net/

The executive summary for starters. Tables 4c and 4d
being particularly interesting.
http://public.itrs.net/Files/2003ITRS/ExecSum2003.pdf

Unless you buy the absolutist 'it's impossible' argument
it seems that most of the major players feel that
significant progress is possible. Perhaps the 2004
roadmap will say otherwise once published.
post #267 of 297
Well the general is true as much as the specific. The idea that frequency scaling has hit the wall though simply doesn't hold water as there are examples, available now, that indicate that 90nm has been successful in allowing higher clock rates.

At 65nm I fully expect that at least a few manufactures will be successfull scaling clock rate at that node. Maybe that is not the direction that IBM is going but it is pretty clear that the rest of the world is still interested in improving single core performance.

I totally agree with you on the usefullness of the smaller transistors. I think we will start to see many more releases of SoC designs and much more in the way of intelligence in peripherals. The problem still reverts to the thought that dual cores, or even more for that matter, only offer so much in the way of performance increases. There is still a need to increase core performance and all those extra transistors can play a role in that performance increase. Clock rate increase though will not crop out ot the picture.

I'm not usually an optimistic person by any means. Maybe my opinion will change when I start to hear a larger crowd of scientist saying they don't see a solution in site. Right now that isn't the case.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Careful, you're over-generalizing the statements -- frequency scaling has hit a wall. That doesn't mean that smaller transistors aren't possible, nor does it mean that there isn't benefit to be gained from them. A 65nm transistor at 2 GHz is still more useful than a 130nm or 90nm transistor at 2 GHz.
post #268 of 297
Ahhh, finally a quote from our esteemed doomsayer! Huzzah! Yes, that was the first quasi-paraphrased paragraph of the second link's article. A rather nice run-in to the rest of the article that illustrates what could happen if a Plan-B wasn't contemplated.

Notice the tense in that paragraph Nr9, oh wait a second, you don't believe writing and communicating are relevant in technical engineers anymore. Well how about reading? 'Cause you just wrapped yourself around a past tense allegorical phrase and took it to be current day gospel. Maybe someone needs to brush up on their english skills a bit so they can make a proper analysis of what they read.

Please, don't run with scissors.
post #269 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Careful, you're over-generalizing the statements -- frequency scaling has hit a wall. That doesn't mean that smaller transistors aren't possible, nor does it mean that there isn't benefit to be gained from them. A 65nm transistor at 2 GHz is still more useful than a 130nm or 90nm transistor at 2 GHz.

I disagree here. You are taking a relatively reasonable view, but it takes even more than reading between the lines to separate Nr9's statements from the absolute "scaling is dead" phrase, not "frequency scaling is dead". Heck he did it again in the post just above yours! I also give no quarter for "sloppy english", if he was in the field and spoke or wrote to his senior engineers in such a manner he would have a max seniority of days. There has been plenty of opportunity for his phraseology to catch up given the flak he has taken, but it doesn't. That leads me to surmise other things which don't need further mention here.

I think for the most part, most of us agree with you, but a small and immensely important difference in specific phraseology started this thread off, and has been repeated with great vigor. And that phraseology doesn't agree with yours, it's absolute, no more Hz, ever... We both know that's not true, the Hz increase rate is slowing but has not forever stopped.
post #270 of 297
Forgive me for not reading every page of this but unless Apple suddenly stops making Powermacs, me thinks they will get faster. I mean, powermacs have increased relatively steadily in speed since they were introduced in 1994.

I guess you mean that the 90nm 970 will not increase in hz. I disagree with this. While very hot, it runs under its rated temp...and there are process tweaks that haven't yet be implemented e.g. SOI (irc).

Even if they don't increase in hz, slapping another core on will speed things up no?
post #271 of 297
We're talking strictly clock speed.

 

 

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 #272 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
Ahhh, finally a quote from our esteemed doomsayer! Huzzah! Yes, that was the first quasi-paraphrased paragraph of the second link's article. A rather nice run-in to the rest of the article that illustrates what could happen if a Plan-B wasn't contemplated.

Notice the tense in that paragraph Nr9, oh wait a second, you don't believe writing and communicating are relevant in technical engineers anymore. Well how about reading? 'Cause you just wrapped yourself around a past tense allegorical phrase and took it to be current day gospel. Maybe someone needs to brush up on their english skills a bit so they can make a proper analysis of what they read.

Please, don't run with scissors.

plan b is multicore, not process improvment

i read the bestest, you obviously dont know how to read. when you read an article, the first thing you look is the title. what does the title of your quoted source. go back to grammar school. most of your sentences are poorly constructed and grammaticaly incorrect.

"Notice the tense in that paragraph Nr9, oh wait a second, you don't believe writing and communicating are relevant in technical engineers anymore. "

what the hell is "oh wait a second"

"Huzzah!"
nice english, i dont see it idctionary

" A rather nice run-in to the rest of the article that illustrates what could happen if a Plan-B wasn't contemplated. "
setence fragment

"Well how about reading?"
missing coma

"'Cause you just wrapped yourself around a past tense allegorical phrase and took it to be current day gospel. "
'cause is not a word
post #273 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
"Chip industry needs a 'Plan B" process technology-wise, plan B does not exist, plan B is multicore.

Apart from the fact what you just wrote is contradictory and a non-sequitur the articles specifically state the answer isn't multi-core alone. The problem is every company intends to lower frequencies on launching multi-core chips to get under the thermal limits. To some extent that's ok but again as you increase cores there's a point of diminishing returns unless you do something else. You either have to increase the frequency or you have to find smarter ways of doing the same thing.

On an aside IBM has been talking system level approaches ever since the POWER4 was released, since they believe themselves in a unique position to provide it, so this is nothing new. Plan B is smarter use of resources, new technologies and new materials.

On an aside that wasn't a sentence fragment, which I doubt you could identify yourself, and you'd find Huzzah is in most dictionaries, even pocket ones. It's an exclamation of delight. 'Cause is actually a word, it's the informal version of because. It could also be considered an abbreviated one but then so is "it's" so that wouldn't make it not a word either.

I would strongly suggest you don't attempt to build any further arguments around your supposed IBM employment or communicative skills as it has become quite clear that you lack both. If you want to make an argument, although you may find that difficult unless you use words to develop and outline your points, based around the technical side of microprocessor manufacture, from what you know, then by all means go crazy. I expect you'll have difficulty outlining much beyond your next insult though.

On a very general aside there have been transistors designed that can switch up to the terahertz rate. Obviously this doesn't directly translate to processor frequencies but scaling is ahead. It's just going to be slower and not a sole focus for performance enhancement anymore.
"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 #274 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
"Well how about reading?"
missing coma

Are you serious about that statement? How can you attack other posts when yours have been horrid through out this whole thread. Like the above post claims, you have failed to prove any points related to the creation of this thread. Either your communication skills aren't up to par, or you are debating using emotional reasoning. Also quit using assumptions and biases; like you have throughout these posts. Define your terms and elaborate on each term. These suggestions I have made are very basic points using critical thinking and communication.

You have had many chances to prove your statement. So please quit trying to justify your topic post. At this point you have lost all credibility.

Only so many cores can be added to a chip. Clock rate will always be progressed on... even if it doesn't bring any major performance gains to the table. All aspects of cpu's will be revamped and or completely changed in the coming years. There isn't any aspect of a processor system that is perfect. Sure they are using some amazing technologies, but those technologies will always be progressed on by engineers.

Time for a new thread, I am done with this one. Have fun wasting the rest of your time trying to convince people... especially when you'll be proved wrong in about seven to ten months.

 

 

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 #275 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
"Notice the tense in that paragraph Nr9, oh wait a second, you don't believe writing and communicating are relevant in technical engineers anymore. "

what the hell is "oh wait a second"

"Huzzah!"
nice english, i dont see it idctionary

" A rather nice run-in to the rest of the article that illustrates what could happen if a Plan-B wasn't contemplated. "
setence fragment

"Well how about reading?"
missing coma

"'Cause you just wrapped yourself around a past tense allegorical phrase and took it to be current day gospel. "
'cause is not a word

Every single one of your grammar "critiques" has a misspelling or punctuation error of its own.

Huzzah is a word.

You are beyond pathetic Nr9.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
post #276 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Are you serious about that statement? How can you attack other posts when yours have been horrid through out this whole thread. Like the above post claims, you have failed to prove any points related to the creation of this thread. Either your communication skills aren't up to par, or you are debating using emotional reasoning. Also quit using assumptions and biases; like you have throughout these posts. Define your terms and elaborate on each term. These suggestions I have made are very basic points using critical thinking and communication.

You have had many chances to prove your statement. So please quit trying to justify your topic post. At this point you have lost all credibility.

Only so many cores can be added to a chip. Clock rate will always be progressed on... even if it doesn't bring any major performance gains to the table. All aspects of cpu's will be revamped and or completely changed in the coming years. There isn't any aspect of a processor system that is perfect. Sure they are using some amazing technologies, but those technologies will always be progressed on by engineers.

Time for a new thread, I am done with this one. Have fun wasting the rest of your time trying to convince people... especially when you'll be proved wrong in about seven to ten months.

"Also quit using assumptions and biases; like you have throughout these posts. "
missing comma and use a comma instead of a semicolon

"These suggestions I have made are very basic points using critical thinking and communication. "
ambiguous modifier -> "using critical thinking and communcation" can refer to "points" or "have made"

"So please quit trying to justify your topic post. At this point you have lost all credibility. "
both sentences have missing commas

"Clock rate will always be progressed on... even if it doesn't bring any major performance gains to the table. "
use a comma, clock rate will progress, not will be progressed, active voice is good

"All aspects of cpu's will be revamped and or completely changed in the coming years."
capitalize your acronyms, what is "and or"


"Sure they are using some amazing technologies, but those technologies will always be progressed on by engineers. "
missia comma, dont use the passive
post #277 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
I disagree here. You are taking a relatively reasonable view, but it takes even more than reading between the lines to separate Nr9's statements from the absolute "scaling is dead" phrase, not "frequency scaling is dead". Heck he did it again in the post just above yours!

Extremist views are virtually always wrong, so I tend to ignore them or water them down automatically. Nr9, in particular, seems to be here to incite reactions rather than have level-headed discussions. Since that has clearly derailed the thread's original topic (again), we might as well just close this one now...
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
post #278 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar

On an aside that wasn't a sentence fragment, which I doubt you could identify yourself, and you'd find Huzzah is in most dictionaries, even pocket ones. It's an exclamation of delight. 'Cause is actually a word, it's the informal version of because. It could also be considered an abbreviated one but then so is "it's" so that wouldn't make it not a word either.

that was definitely a sentence fragment
" A rather nice run-in to the rest of the article that illustrates what could happen if a Plan-B wasn't contemplated."

that illustrates is a verbal describing article,
this is definitely fragment
post #279 of 297
Before the Lock! - I was just wondering how they test chips to get the speed rating.

I'm imagining some sort of hydraulically operated heatsink or watercooler that comes down onto a chip, while on the bottom is a kind of socket to provide the power, and then they run it increasing the power until it becomes unstable. All automated of course.
post #280 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Apart from the fact what you just wrote is contradictory and a non-sequitur the articles specifically state the answer isn't multi-core alone. The problem is every company intends to lower frequencies on launching multi-core chips to get under the thermal limits. To some extent that's ok but again as you increase cores there's a point of diminishing returns unless you do something else. You either have to increase the frequency or you have to find smarter ways of doing the same thing.

On an aside IBM has been talking system level approaches ever since the POWER4 was released, since they believe themselves in a unique position to provide it, so this is nothing new. Plan B is smarter use of resources, new technologies and new materials.

On an aside that wasn't a sentence fragment, which I doubt you could identify yourself, and you'd find Huzzah is in most dictionaries, even pocket ones. It's an exclamation of delight. 'Cause is actually a word, it's the informal version of because. It could also be considered an abbreviated one but then so is "it's" so that wouldn't make it not a word either.

I would strongly suggest you don't attempt to build any further arguments around your supposed IBM employment or communicative skills as it has become quite clear that you lack both. If you want to make an argument, although you may find that difficult unless you use words to develop and outline your points, based around the technical side of microprocessor manufacture, from what you know, then by all means go crazy. I expect you'll have difficulty outlining much beyond your next insult though.

On a very general aside there have been transistors designed that can switch up to the terahertz rate. Obviously this doesn't directly translate to processor frequencies but scaling is ahead. It's just going to be slower and not a sole focus for performance enhancement anymore.

"Apart from the fact what you just wrote is contradictory and a non-sequitur the articles specifically state the answer isn't multi-core alone. "
missing comma

"The problem is every company .."
insert a "that" between is and every

"To some extent that's ok but again as you increase cores there's a point of diminishing returns unless you do something else. "
missing coma, capitalize ok

"On an aside IBM has been talking system level approaches ever since the POWER4 was released, since they believe themselves in a unique position to provide it, so this is nothing new. "
missing comma after aside, you can't belive someone in a position, add a verb, "this is nothing new"<-- what does "this" refer to

"On an aside that wasn't a sentence fragment, which I doubt you could identify yourself, and you'd find Huzzah is in most dictionaries, even pocket ones. "
missing comma after aside

and on and on....
man your english sucks, go back o grammar school
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