or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Freescale Article...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Freescale Article...

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8548
post #2 of 15
Good article. 2005 is going to be a good year for Apple Laptops when Freescale brings out these chips.

Oh wait...

Here's to hoping that IBM can cool the 970fx.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Good article. 2005 is going to be a good year for Apple Laptops when Freescale brings out these chips.

Oh wait...

Here's to hoping that IBM can cool the 970fx.

Not to mention that Summer '05 means Spring '07 in Motorolla speak...
post #4 of 15
Well we can always hope that FreeScale has gotten its act together. They are out from under that Motorola thumb which was half of their problem.

The other thing that makes one hopefull is that they are teamed up with significant players in the semiconductor field. Now maybe they won't be able to make use of the team but things do look promising.

Even more so the changes made to the G4+ could result in an extremely capable processor. We are talking significant gains even before the clock rate is ticked up. All of this at lower power really could lead to an excellent PowerBook / iBook processor.

Besides it would be very funny to see Freescale get laptop design ins at IBM's expense. Sort of like turning things around.

The biggest problem is that I have this suspicion that the PowerBooks are already set for the G5. It is just a waiting game now for chips that work.

Dave


Quote:
Originally posted by Chagi
Not to mention that Summer '05 means Spring '07 in Motorolla speak...
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
The biggest problem is that I have this suspicion that the PowerBooks are already set for the G5. It is just a waiting game now for chips that work.

Yeah, I have a feeling there's no room for a faster Freescale chip and the G5. IMHO, Apple's not going to use the Freescale chip if they're ramped up or planning for the G5. Either that or the iBook gets the Freescale and the Powerbook gets the G5. Problems will arise if the performance difference between the two isn't worth the price difference.
post #6 of 15
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by mikef
Yeah, I have a feeling there's no room for a faster Freescale chip and the G5.

Why not? IBM and Moto have coexisted in Apple's product line before - remember the 603e and 604e?

Moto/Freescale are better than IBM at one thing - making low-power chips. If they can get the performance up, they'll make really nice laptop chips.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #8 of 15
If Apple has any new full size hardware in their lineup that we do not know about I could see them using a freescale processor, but I also have my doubts. By the time Freescale is ready I'm hoping IBM will be able to supply Apple with all the processors they need. So really why would Apple even use them?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




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

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 
I've been thinking a bit recently, and I wonder if a Transmeta CPU for mobile Mac purposes is a possibility.

The reason I mention this is that the TMTA chips emulate x86 in real-time on their VLIW architecture, and their watt/performance ratio blows both AMD and Intel out of the water. If they can do it with x86, why not do the same for Power architecture?

Ironically, the biggest reason I can see for this not to happen is not technical, but instead legal, since Transmeta isn't part of the PowerPC triad (Apple, IBM, Freescale), not sure what would be involved licensing-wise.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
By the time Freescale is ready I'm hoping IBM will be able to supply Apple with all the processors they need. So really why would Apple even use them?

Apple might have to use Freescale processors. IBM is not turning out to be the perfect supplier that Apple wished. If IBM cannot supply enough chips to Apple, they will need another supplier.

But the problem is that processor development takes time. If Apple needs new CPUs next year, they need to commit to the development and/or purchase of the CPUs now. If Apple buys CPUs they will have to use it whether IBM delivers or not.

Either that or Apple needs to increase development of x86 OS X as a backup plan.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Chagi
I've been thinking a bit recently, and I wonder if a Transmeta CPU for mobile Mac purposes is a possibility.

Interesting that you bring Transmeta up.
Quote:

The reason I mention this is that the TMTA chips emulate x86 in real-time on their VLIW architecture, and their watt/performance ratio blows both AMD and Intel out of the water. If they can do it with x86, why not do the same for Power architecture?

Well while their watt/performance figure is good there overall performance figure isn't all that great. Since Transmeta is going the way of the Dodo the best thing that could happen is if Frescale where to buy them. Take that technology and incoroprate it into a processor that can run PPC code at low power. Freescale shouldn't be underestimated with respect to power usage though, the trick is to get the low power and performance in the same package.

The saddest thing about Transmeta and probally one of the reasons that they were never well accepted is that there is little access to that VLIW engine and it is next to impossible to get a OS to run on that engine. I would have thought that they would have learned from the poor response their CPU's got in the market and upgraded their VLIW design into a real compute platform but they didn't so I don't see ahuge future for them. In any event I suspect that it would be very difficult to get a VLIW machine to emulate any of Freescales processors and be under their watt/performance figures.

Add to that the variability in the performance of a Tranmeta based device and I fail to see a happy ending. Its sad to see Transmeta going the way they are at the moment but it is often a fact of life that companies bcome so focused on their technology that the fail to adapt to new realities.
Quote:

Ironically, the biggest reason I can see for this not to happen is not technical, but instead legal, since Transmeta isn't part of the PowerPC triad (Apple, IBM, Freescale), not sure what would be involved licensing-wise.

That is rather funny as I see the major problems beign technical not legal. Apple was part of AIM there is no reason why they couldn't sponsor another processor endeavor. We all remember that other company that wanted to go the bipolar route.

The problem is performance. Maybe the latest from Transmeta are performing better, but I find it hard to believe that they can beat a RISC system using equivalent processes. That and the fact that sooner or later high integration devices will be the norm, just reduces any advantages that the current Transmeta chips may have. At some point, for portables anyways, it will be a big advantage to go to high integration devices.

Dave
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by CharlesS
Why not? IBM and Moto have coexisted in Apple's product line before - remember the 603e and 604e?

I'm a Johnny-come-lately in the Mac world, so no, I don't remember those

I am just thinking there would be too much overlap (ie. Freescale high-end is faster than G5 low end). Can that situation co-exist?

Quote:
Moto/Freescale are better than IBM at one thing - making low-power chips. If they can get the performance up, they'll make really nice laptop chips.

I agree. Those power consumption figures quoted in the article seem very good. If there's any complaint I can make about any notebook on the market, it's against the battery life.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Chagi
I've been thinking a bit recently, and I wonder if a Transmeta CPU for mobile Mac purposes is a possibility.

The reason I mention this is that the TMTA chips emulate x86 in real-time on their VLIW architecture, and their watt/performance ratio blows both AMD and Intel out of the water. If they can do it with x86, why not do the same for Power architecture?

Ironically, the biggest reason I can see for this not to happen is not technical, but instead legal, since Transmeta isn't part of the PowerPC triad (Apple, IBM, Freescale), not sure what would be involved licensing-wise.

As I understand it there is no need, at least from Apple's perspective. They have a portable OS that could be ported to another processor, sans G4/5 optimizations and AltiVec, when Apple see's the need to do so. This is a transition that they have done before, and I don't think they would have too much problem selling it to the Mac community now that OS X is a pretty mature OS. As far as the applications are concerned, I believe that is a relatively painless recompile for the developers for a new processor, though again you loose the AltiVec and G4/5 optimizations that you have in the code.
post #14 of 15
i'd rather have a new dual core G4 than a g5 me thinks
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by earthtoandy
i'd rather have a new dual core G4 than a g5 me thinks

Have a look at this:
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...elease&tid=FSH

This tends to indicate that Freescale hasn't even got its 90nm process fab completed yet (see the 4th paragraph). This is probably why the 7448 and 8600 series is going to take so long...the fab isn't even finished yet!!!

It also points to the misrepresentation of Crolles. No doubt it is effectively a research fab that the partners can copy at their various homebases, rather than a one stop fab for Philips et al to share.

You are not going to see Freescale do anything else apart from promoting vapourware for a while (ie. what the article that this thread is based on was doing).

Mr Macphisto in a previous threat noted that Apple seems to have put more emphasis on IBM recently. For good reason or so it seems\
human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on
which we hammer out tunes to make bears
dance when we long to move the stars to
pity.
Reply
human speech is like a cracked tin kettle, on
which we hammer out tunes to make bears
dance when we long to move the stars to
pity.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Freescale Article...