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 2  

post #41 of 297
Thread Starter 
EH, NO
post #42 of 297
First off it is IBM; their process & design is what is causing the problems. Now that doesn't mean that they aren't trying to repair what is broken but they do have a ways to go.

It is not a limitation of the CPU in any shape or form. It is a problem with the process and the design. If IBM can get a handle on that, we may have stable 970FX or what ever they will be calling them next. IBM needs to address both the dynamic and static power used by the current process or move to something else.

Yes everyone has problems, I would imagine that even Nr9 has problems, but the wall IBM has been talking about is a wall they laid brick by brick themselves. There is a huge amount of work going into 90nm, not all of that engineering work is in the hands of IBM & Intel. Freescale is taking their approach, which if I understand them and their market will be rather conservative. But outside the maintstream markets you have corporations such as TI doing leading edge research at these geometries. Pop your head up a bit and look around IBM may have been the first to 90nm but it is not on what could be considered an innovative process.

Will we one day hit a physical limitation? Sure that is bound to happen but it won't be at 90nm and is very unlikely to happen at 65 nm. IBM's number one goal should be to develop a much lower power transitor element and a process to build that transistor. It is pretty clear that if IBM doesn't keep on the ball here they will be eclipsed by others in the market place. That may not concern IBM much but it certainly should be a concern to Apple.

Dave

Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
wizard69, its not just IBM

EVERYONE has power problems. its the physical limitation of CPUs
post #43 of 297
Thread Starter 
thats what they thought, but everyone who went to 90nm realized that they have hit the physical limit.
post #44 of 297
A dual core chip is just that, two cores on one piece of silicon. Putting two cores on one piece of silicon does not make it easier to cool as your heat density is the same for the cores themselves. Other parts of the chip may actually see an increase in thermal load for example the bus interface. As to the single core processors and the heat out as Hz increase, yeah that is a problem with current processes. But that has been conquered many times in the history of this technology, there is room at 90nm to do it again.

Dual core or not the manufactures have no choice but to increase the operating frequency of the processors. The performance demands are such for leading edge software, that every trick in the book will be required to meet those needs in the future. This means dual cores, extended instruction sets and much faster processors. It is up to IBM to meet the challanges of tommorrows markets. If they can ever get the process corrected, we could very well see beyond 3GHz by the end of 2005.

Oh by the way AMD has been introducing faster processors for some time now. Unfortunately they hitched up with IBM for 90nm, it will be interesting to see how that pans out as other 90nm processes mature.


Dave


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

you are wrong about faster processors coming. ask ibm, intel and amd
post #45 of 297
First off not everyone believes this. There is not a physical limit at 90nm it is a process limitation and nothing more. IBM will either evolve their process or they will become the modern day Motorola. It is IBM's game to play and it appears to be a case of attemtping to change the rules in the middle of play with the claims of a wall being hit. Frankly sound like more of a marketing scam than anything.

The reality is that research and process development is going strong at these sizes. Frankly I do not know why IBM would have declared a wall being hit as it is a very poor reflection on their engineers and scientist. IBM has no choice they either have to be successful with the 970 and get the 90nm process under control or kiss their fabrication business good by. So I very much expect that we will see IBM introduce CPU's on a revised 90nm process.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
thats what they thought, but everyone who went to 90nm realized that they have hit the physical limit.
post #46 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
you seem to be making this up.

Kettle meet pot.
post #47 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Hannibal's latest post on Ars has me wondering if there will be no POWER5-lite, simply enhancements to the 970's existing design.

Keep in mind the POWER5 was by and large simple enhancements to the POWER4. There's not really much that's radical or new in it.
"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 #48 of 297
Chipworks discovered that IBM does not use all the fabrication techniques they said they'd use on the 970FX. It seems to Chipworks that IBM is largely using their 130 nm technology just shrunk to 90 nm with less than great results. My conclusion is that IBM has not mastered the intended 90 nm fabrication and it's the reason why we see hotter and slower 970FX processors than we we were promised. When/if IBM get's their fab straight I see no reason why they can't deiver on their 3 GHz promise.
post #49 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
Chipworks discovered that IBM does not use all the fabrication techniques they said they'd use on the 970FX. It seems to Chipworks that IBM is largely using their 130 nm technology just shrunk to 90 nm with less than great results. My conclusion is that IBM has not mastered the intended 90 nm fabrication and it's the reason why we see hotter and slower 970FX processors than we we were promised. When/if IBM get's their fab straight I see no reason why they can't deiver on their 3 GHz promise.

Last I'd heard IBM had made some rather poor material selections when it came to the 90 nm process. Turned out the materials weren't anywhere near as effective as they'd believed they would be and correcting that has been what has driven their 90 nm process back by a lot.
"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 #50 of 297
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

Yes, power is goes up by the square of the voltage, but that is what die shrinks are for. Also, as someone mentioned already, twice the area doesn't mean half the power density. It's still the same power density. Eventually, research into thermoelectric materials, innovative chip packaging and better cooling solutions can all help dissipate higher power processors.

Quote:
you are wrong about faster processors coming. ask ibm, intel and amd

I will predict Intel will produce a 4 GHz Prescott (not much of a leap though) by 3Q 2005, AMD will be produce a 2.8 GHz in 2.7 GHz Athlon 64/Opteron by 3Q 2005, and IBM will produce a 2.8 GHz 970fx or dual core by 2Q 2005. I don't think clock rates will be standing still for an entire year.
post #51 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Keep in mind the POWER5 was by and large simple enhancements to the POWER4. There's not really much that's radical or new in it.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...8/ai_ziff49585
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
post #52 of 297
Thread Starter 
guys, i never said dual core is lower density with respect to a single core running at the same frequency.

i said it is lower heat density with respect to a single core that provides the same throughput, ie, one that runs at twice the clock.

dont put words in my mouth

Also, don't believe it if you dont want to. but its not just IBM, 90nm is simply the end of road. Where are intel's great results with 90nm? For all I know, the pentium 4 570 and 580 are CANCELLED. This is why they are going dual core too. Similarily with IBM, the 3GHz 970 is CANCELLED.
post #53 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Apple may yet receive 3GHZ 970FX chips with PowerTune if they can find a way to keep them cool while also keeping the PowerMacs fairly quiet.

Some speculate that this is the intent of the liquid cooling system in the 2.5GHz G5s which appears to be overengineered for that processor. (That is, Apple expects it to reduce fan noise in higher-clocked systems to an acceptable level as it is not absolutely necessary to cool a 2.5Ghz at low dbs.)
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
post #54 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Some speculate that this is the intent of the liquid cooling system in the 2.5GHz G5s which appears to be overengineered for that processor. (That is, Apple expects it to reduce fan noise in higher-clocked systems to an acceptable level as it is not absolutely necessary to cool a 2.5Ghz at low dbs.)

the liquid cooling is definitely required for the 2.5
post #55 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
the liquid cooling is definitely required for the 2.5

I heard that the reason it needed liquid cooling was not because of the amount of heat that needed to be removed but the amount of heat per surface area. The die shink concentrated all the heat in a small surface area, Traditional methods could not remove the heat fast enough?
TD
TD
post #56 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Yes, power is goes up by the square of the voltage, but that is what die shrinks are for. Also, as someone mentioned already, twice the area doesn't mean half the power density. It's still the same power density. Eventually, research into thermoelectric materials, innovative chip packaging and better cooling solutions can all help dissipate higher power processors.

Those approaches are all well and good but licking the problem at the root is a smarter course of action. New processes and geometries need to be icorporated to lower static power drastically and to address dynamic power.

IBM has done very little with respect to this with the 90nm 970. It is also why we are hearing about delays with the mobile chips. IBM is working on lowering power but that does not mean they have a solution yet. In the end static heat from a processor is nothing but waste.
Quote:
I will predict Intel will produce a 4 GHz Prescott (not much of a leap though) by 3Q 2005, AMD will be produce a 2.8 GHz in 2.7 GHz Athlon 64/Opteron by 3Q 2005, and IBM will produce a 2.8 GHz 970fx or dual core by 2Q 2005. I don't think clock rates will be standing still for an entire year.

I don't think clock rates will be standing still either. The question is will IBM keep up with the pack? Clock rate is very important to scaling certain sorts of performance. Multi processing serves to in crease performance in other ways, the industry needs to incorporate both advances to keep moving forward. So yes some in the industry hit a speed bump, the smart players are treating it just as that and are recovering and moving forward. I'm not sure what to think of the people who think they hit a wall.

Dave
post #57 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
the liquid cooling is definitely required for the 2.5

Prove it.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
post #58 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
Keep in mind the POWER5 was by and large simple enhancements to the POWER4. There's not really much that's radical or new in it.

Um... except faster bus, on-chip mem controller, SSOI instead of SOI, 1mb l2 cache... yah there is a lot that is different... oh yah... both are ppc and 130nm

 

 

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 #59 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by tadunne
I heard that the reason it needed liquid cooling was not because of the amount of heat that needed to be removed but the amount of heat per surface area. The die shink concentrated all the heat in a small surface area, Traditional methods could not remove the heat fast enough?

This is true. Apple has this documented in the white papers.

 

 

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 #60 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
the liquid cooling is definitely required for the 2.5

Not from my understanding, although it is required if you don't want excessive fan noise.

Now I do not know people at Apple, but I think that noise has become part of the elegance issue for them. They've got a monopoly on intelligent design. They've got an intelligent, stable OS that is Unix based. They're trying to create machines that will not frustrate people and will see to work naturally. They've obviously been focused on quiet machines since the G5 hit. I remember all the complaints people had about the G4 PowerMacs and noise.

The G5s are very quiet - far more so than the AMD and Intel dual processor competition that people purchase. The iMac is also dead quiet. The laptops are the quietest I've (not) heard. It's part of the refinement issue for Apple. They want to offer speed while also offering refinement. Not just raw power, but something more.

I haven't taken a look at the cooling system for the 2.5 G5 as of yet, but I think Apple could come up with an active system to cool 3GHZ G5s - and as wizard has pointed out, some of IBM's issues have also created problems. I honestly don't know all the details about what's going on at 90nm as I am not a chip guru nor do I know tons about chip manufacture (I know enough to get by). My contacts are purely based on my software experience working at IBM - I had to know people who designed IBM's POWER and PowerPC chips for references when I worked on OS/2 several years ago (oh, and how I miss the Workplace Shell). I do know that IBM engineers feel they are making good progress on issues they've had at 90nm and anticipated issues at 65nm. the good news is that the 90nm issues has helped them refine the next process.
post #61 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
the good news is that the 90nm issues has helped them refine the next process.

That is comforting

 

 

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 #62 of 297
Anyway, It's not really important to know if the G5 will reach 3 ghz or not (it's only 20 % more performance). The important point, pointed it out by nr9 is that the heat density has reach a limit who need solutions.

Some months ago, there was a rumor saying that IBM and others where studying diamond derived material to extract heat of chip in a very efficient way. Currently this rumor has vanished, the diamond way is perhaps a defective technology and chips designers have to choose an another way.

It's clear that the multicore way, is the future, and that programmation will recquiere some adadptation to benefit of the extra power.

I truly belive in muticore future.
post #63 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
plans change

But people don't, apparently...
Desktop Mac: 2.0GHz iMac Core Duo
Laptop Mac: 1.5GHz PowerBook G4
Desktop Mac: 2.0GHz iMac Core Duo
Laptop Mac: 1.5GHz PowerBook G4
post #64 of 297
Lets then hope Apple can produce better graphics cards, and OpenGL drivers to compensate for the lack of processor speed to make things faster for some of us.
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 #65 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Um... except faster bus, on-chip mem controller, SSOI instead of SOI, 1mb l2 cache... yah there is a lot that is different... oh yah... both are ppc and 130nm

Aparts from the fact you have 2 things wrong in that list (it has a larger L2 cache and doesn't use SSOI) what there do you picture as being radically new? It certainly isn't a faster bus or every speed bump of the PIV's has made it a radically new chip. Heavens help you if you learn to overclock too. On chip memory controllers are about moving existing silicon and integrating, a job, yes, but nothing radical about it.

Things changed but not substantially. The POWER4's design was refined and improved upon. The POWER5 is not and never has been a completely new design it has always been a refinement of the original POWER4 aimed at using resources better and you really need to only have seen IBMs original briefs to know that one since they emphasised it very strongly.

About the most substantial change was in the form of support for hardware partitioning, which a successor to the 970 won't see.
"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 #66 of 297
When I said l2 1mb cache... that point was to mean it has a larger l2 cache...

Also I was almost positive that the Power5 uses SSOI... that was one of the reasons they gained so much more out of it....

 

 

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 #67 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
Those approaches are all well and good but licking the problem at the root is a smarter course of action.

Smarter courses of action aren't necessarily the ones that come to fruition. In the PPC world, the smarter course of action seems to be exception not the rule.

Quote:
New processes and geometries need to be icorporated to lower static power drastically and to address dynamic power.

True. They will. But personal computer power consumption has been on an upward trend since it began. There was a time when 5 Watts was what was budgeted for mobile processors. Then the power budget was 10 Watts, then 20 Watts. It's now 30 to 40 Watts with some desktop replacements using the 80+ Watts desktop processors. This same trend exists for the desktop markets well with 100 Watts being the norm in the next year.

The industry may retreat, but I think they will do what is necessary to make cooling systems be able handle the extra heat from next-gen processors. They will have to because multi-core processors won't alleviate power consumption and heat dissipation much at all.

Quote:
Multi processing serves to in crease performance in other ways, the industry needs to incorporate both advances to keep moving forward. So yes some in the industry hit a speed bump, the smart players are treating it just as that and are recovering and moving forward. I'm not sure what to think of the people who think they hit a wall.

Yes. Agree. I've always thought that multi-core was going to be normal at <90 nm because they would allow 150+ million transistor processors to be economical enough for personal computing, not that clock rate difficulties are forcing CPU manufacturers to use multi-core.
post #68 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by THT


The industry may retreat, but I think they will do what is necessary to make cooling systems be able handle the extra heat from next-gen processors. They will have to because multi-core processors won't alleviate power consumption and heat dissipation much at all.



Yes. Agree. I've always thought that multi-core was going to be normal at <90 nm because they would allow 150+ million transistor processors to be economical enough for personal computing, not that clock rate difficulties are forcing CPU manufacturers to use multi-core.

You are wrong. Why are you so stubborn. Do you work in the CPU industry? Obviously not.

Multiple Core processors will allow us to stop increasing power dissipation / area and just keep adding extra cores. Why don't you get it? Frequency is going to stop goign up. That's a fact.

Multicore processors will completely alleviate the relevant measure of power consumption, which is power density/performance. If you have twice the # of cores, and you measure performance in terms of throughput of multiple threads, this measure of power consumption will be halved.
post #69 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
You are wrong. Why are you so stubborn. Do you work in the CPU industry? Obviously not.

Multiple Core processors will allow us to stop increasing power dissipation / area and just keep adding extra cores. Why don't you get it? Frequency is going to stop goign up. That's a fact.

Multicore processors will completely alleviate the relevant measure of power consumption, which is power density/performance. If you have twice the # of cores, and you measure performance in terms of throughput of multiple threads, this measure of power consumption will be halved.

We all know that CPU's will reach a certain speed and will have to resort to adding cores to it. But, I think it won't be at 2.5 Ghz or 4 Ghz in the Intel world. The more likely area is 6-15 Ghz.
post #70 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
We all know that CPU's will reach a ceratin speed and will have to resort to adding cores to it. But, I think it won't be at 2.5 Ghz or 4 Ghz in the Intel world. The more likely area is 6-15 Ghz.

Well put.

 

 

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 #71 of 297
Thread Starter 
trust me, it is 2.5-4GHz
post #72 of 297
Well didn't the indrustry think 400 Mhz(or was it around 500 Mhz) was the fastest CPU's could go. Well in went faster. This is the same story. People think 2.5 Ghz G5 is the fastest the PPC can go before adding another core and 4 Ghz on the P4. Trust me one this CPU's will go faster then 4 Ghz including the PPC on a single core. It will be around 6 Ghz when we will hit trouble.
post #73 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
Well didn't the indrustry think 400 Mhz(or was it around 500 Mhz) was the fastest CPU's could go. Well in went faster. This is the same story. People think 2.5 Ghz G5 is the fastest the PPC can go before adding another core and 4 Ghz on the P4. Trust me one this CPU's will go faster then 4 Ghz including the PPC on a single core. It will be around 6 Ghz when we will hit trouble.

How is this the same story, based on what? I haven't been following the thread too closely, and especially since much of this is above me, but the power problems that are popping up with Intel processors and others are causing processor speed increases to nearly halt. It's not like you can just wave a magic wand and all of a sudden processor speeds will start rapidly moving upwards again without any power problems.

Why do you think everyone has dual core on their roadmaps? If it was as simple as just upping frequencies as usual for the next couple years to hit anything close to 6+ GHz, don't you think they'd be doing that?

An overview on the power problems is over at Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/004/presc...rescott-1.html
What the problem is?
What the problem is?
post #74 of 297
Nr9 is a knuckle-head. Quad-core 440s eh? Go away, sludge.

Anyway, it isn't necessary the power factor as it is the leakage factor, it will be solved. It is just the situation right now. 90nm is in it's infancy and obviously, so is your acceptance of this fact.
...we have assumed control
...we have assumed control
post #75 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by MCQ
Why do you think everyone has dual core on their roadmaps? If it was as simple as just upping frequencies as usual for the next couple years to hit anything close to 6+ GHz, don't you think they'd be doing that?

Because adding another cpu is a lot easier, cheaper, and efficient than getting a 33%-66% speed increase on single core... Speeds will go over 2.5ghz within the next year. I bet my dual 2.0 RevB Powermac.

 

 

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 #76 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by MCQ
How is this the same story, based on what? I haven't been following the thread too closely, and especially since much of this is above me, but the power problems that are popping up with Intel processors and others are causing processor speed increases to nearly halt. It's not like you can just wave a magic wand and all of a sudden processor speeds will start rapidly moving upwards again without any power problems.

Why do you think everyone has dual core on their roadmaps? If it was as simple as just upping frequencies as usual for the next couple years to hit anything close to 6+ GHz, don't you think they'd be doing that?

An overview on the power problems is over at Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/004/presc...rescott-1.html

Back when the G4's were new the industry analysis were saying they wouldn't be able to break a certain MHz speed. I forgot but, I think it was 400 Mhz. Maybe it was the 1 year stall from Moto on the G4. I forgot but, remember the basic story. They were saying because of the heat and the size of the CPU we wouldn't be able to make it smaller and faster. Certainly CPU's went faster. Now, we have this misinformed person preaching we won't be able to break 2.5 Ghz on the PPC and 4 Ghz on the P4 because of the heat and size. Most likely CPU's will go faster. I don't know how much faster we can push it but, certainly more then 2.5 Ghz and 4 Ghz. I say we won't be able to push the CPU more then 15 Ghz. But, that is my guess. But, I say the window of the fastest single core CPU will be between 6-15 Ghz. Then we will be adding cores to make the CPU faster.
post #77 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
Well didn't the indrustry think 400 Mhz(or was it around 500 Mhz) was the fastest CPU's could go. Well in went faster. This is the same story. People think 2.5 Ghz G5 is the fastest the PPC can go before adding another core and 4 Ghz on the P4. Trust me one this CPU's will go faster then 4 Ghz including the PPC on a single core. It will be around 6 Ghz when we will hit trouble.

I tend to agree with quagmire. Just because you can not see the future does not mean it is not there.

Nr9, reminds me of chicken little.
If memory serves me correct he was the one that told everyone the sky was falling.

I think research, and technology will push on, and the door to higher clock cycles will be opened once again in the near future.

Until that time I think Apple may have a head start on optimizing their computers performance by other means weather it be multiprocessing, clustering, code optimization, and/or utilizing the GPU to increase performance.

The only set back is if they intend to use the GPU to strengthen system performance they have to get a grip on OpenGL for once, and also start providing better graphics card solutions. If they don't they will remain dead in the water because the X86 side totally outperforms in these categories already, and once they (x86 side) start to utilize the same things Apple will look all the worse.

[edit]

Which brings me back to something I said in an older thread about Apple needing to change the way the Mac graphics cards are, and develop a motherboard that will enable plug, and play with PC graphics cards.

I think it's time they (apple) hire a new OpenGL team dedicated to porting PC graphics drivers to start putting them in the system updates as they become available. Also, incorporate a PC graphics card compatibility list on their web site, and just keep adding cards to the list as the team finishes the drivers.
Something needs to be done in this area if Apple intends not only to survive, but to compete which is what they should be striving for.


[second edit]

Then again. It shouldn't be Apples job in it's entirety to supply graphics drivers for Macs. Nvidia, and ATI should both participate if Apple opens up to a more standard graphics card system.
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 #78 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by Nr9
You are wrong. Why are you so stubborn. Do you work in the CPU industry? Obviously not.

Obviously not. But what does it matter. This is a message board consisting of Apple fans, and we're all allowed to participate.

Quote:
Multiple Core processors will allow us to stop increasing power dissipation / area and just keep adding extra cores. Why don't you get it? Frequency is going to stop goign up. That's a fact.

That's a prediction. It won't be a fact until companies give up trying to do it (on CMOS based processes). I think everyone has another GHz or so before it becomes impossible.

Quote:
Multicore processors will completely alleviate the relevant measure of power consumption, which is power density/performance. If you have twice the # of cores, and you measure performance in terms of throughput of multiple threads, this measure of power consumption will be halved.

Single threaded performance is still too attractive for companies to stop trying to produce higher clock rate cores, and why would I want to limit performance benchmarking to just multi-threaded performance?

I'm a techno-optimist, I think companies and users are perfectly willing to put up with using higher performance cooling systems in higher power computers for the same cost as their prior systems.
post #79 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
But, that is my guess. But, I say the window of the fastest single core CPU will be between 6-15 Ghz. Then we will be adding cores to make the CPU faster.

Except that the major companies have dual core in their plans over the next 12-18 months. This isn't something coming way down the line, it's in the plans now. If they really thought they could move to those high speeds in the next 2-3 years, they wouldn't have roadmaps showing dual core.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/...spx?i=2203&p=1
What the problem is?
What the problem is?
post #80 of 297
Quote:
Originally posted by MCQ
Except that the major companies have dual core in their plans over the next 12-18 months. This isn't something coming way down the line, it's in the plans now. If they really thought they could move to those high speeds in the next 2-3 years, they wouldn't have roadmaps showing dual core.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/...spx?i=2203&p=1

That doesn't mean they will not make each core faster. I was trying to say is that we will hit the final speed in a core. Which I think is 6-15 Ghz. Then we will only have the technique of adding cores to make the CPU faster. But, then we wouldn't be able to add anymore cores. What then? Only the future can tell us.
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