or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › MHz doesn't matter, neccessarily (AthXP, P4, G4 Apollo, The Naked Mole Rat, etc.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MHz doesn't matter, neccessarily (AthXP, P4, G4 Apollo, The Naked Mole Rat, etc.)

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
With the release of the P4 2.2 GHz, everyone has gnashed their teeth, and a great wailing has gone up amongst the AI faithful. 'Now we are this far behind!' they yell, widening their arms as a child would upon being asked how much they love Mommy.

Now, comes our friend the Naked Mole Rat, who prognostifies and pontifigates that the Apollo G4 is on its way, and speeds of 1.4 GHz should be expected.

Already, the backlash has happened, with grumblings of, "That's not enough, damnit Motorola, etc."

And while I certainly think that Mto's SemiCon Division is all sorts of messed up since 1998 or so, I think the truth will come to be known soon enough: The Apollo 1.4 GHz processor will match up nicely against the 1.67 GHz Athlon (that's right kids! The so-called Athlon 2000 runs at only 1667 MHz. Who's been running their own MHz Myth?)

And more than a few PC hardware review sites have shown that the Athlon 2000 can run with P4 at 2.2 GHz, and even beat it in many aspects.

So, for all you spec cold-warriors, and GHz bleaters and G5 wishers, and so on, I say:

GET OVER IT.

The Apollo will run with the x86 chips out there, and with the added fun of a fatter bus and better HD's will stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in the consumer space!

THe future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

SdC, the current holder of CAO (Chief Apologist's Office)
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #2 of 48
[quote]
The Apollo will run with the x86 chips out there, and with the added fun of a fatter bus and better HD's will stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in the consumer space!<hr></blockquote>

if a 1.4Ghz G4 does come out It'll be welcome and may be competitive but Apple needs to go to DP standard. they did it before when they couldn't increase clockspeed and made a big deal about 2 brains being better than one and then they were hypocrits and got rid of the duals standard once they were able to break 500.

I thought a fatter bus wouldn't show much advantage except in some areas and even at that not a huge difference?

Better HDs? the current hard drives don't max out ATA/66. Not sure what moving to ATA/100 will do for today's hard drives. I know it'll be ready for "tomorrow's" though
post #3 of 48
suckfuldotcom- You're funny.

MHz does matter. The Northwood ain't half bad, especially coupled with the fact that it be overclocked to 2.6 GHz pretty easily. Still think that Apollo is a big bad processor? The P4 will continue to scale and add a 533 MHz system bus. Meanwhile, the Athlon XP still reigns over the G4, and it will take a nice leap for the G4 to get the kind of performance AMD has with that processor.
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #4 of 48
Thread Starter 
Applenut:

I was checking out DV magazine the other day, and they were putting the dual proc machines through their paces. They had the 2x800 G4, and various 2xAMD and 2xP4 configs.

Apple managed to hang in with these allegedly much faster systems in most apps, except for those where bandwidth and disk accessing were key.

The x86 configurations had the big pipe SCSI (I forget which standard) and the big pipe bus.

I don't think Apple will return to standard SCSI (but every little bit helps and I would love to see ATA 100 or even 133), but the fat bus will make a huge difference.

TW:

The Northwood does have a potential huge speed upside, but I think Apple can meed it with the G5, in late 2002 or 2003.

The G5 will have more transistors than I can imagine (something like 50 million to the G4's, like what? 12 million IIRC) , and will be a huge leap in PPC architecture. It will be more than a match for Northwood and whatever AMD comes up with.

Furthermore, I guarantee that Apollo Powermacs will be competitive on almost all cross-platform apps. And not just barefeats will stand up and recognize.

SdC

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #5 of 48
Well, for one, the article says the Apollo will be in the 1.4ghz area, I for one hope that means we might even see a 1.6ghz chip.

All I keep reading is how the G4 is hoobled by slow memory and bus. So, if this new chip has DDR and faster bus, I'll get it.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #6 of 48
Hang? Obviously you didn't read the article, because the G4 got smacked around. It wasn't fun reading "the G4 comes in well behind the K7" or something of that nature over and over. Yeah, I suggest you read more carefully.
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #7 of 48
Well SCSI drives will usually always outperform an ATA drive whether its ATA/66 or 100 or whatever.

anyone know why seek times on ATA drives are so slow compared to SCSI? and is it possible to make a 10,000 RPM ATA drive?
post #8 of 48
if the g4 is released at 1.4 or 1.6 with ddr and a faster bus it WILL compete and probably surpass AMD performance, for the most part intels processors are higly inefficant and rely on very high MHZ numbers to compete.in various benchmarks up until recently the g4 has always been 4-6th place or so in many many applications, not bad for being half the mhz to the competition, couple that fact with the no ddr ata/66 and 133 system bus, you can easily see that with these things apple would easily be 1 or 2 in most if not all applications that matter(I don't count quake 3 mattering in any sense of the word)
I am with suckful, I feel that apple has a bright future ahead of them, the current iMac is ripping up the scene, pc users and mac users are loving the hell out of it, and with more pc users seeing the new iMac they inevitably see the tibook and the ibook and go "wow", I feel that once apples line-up is rounded off by a nice fast super pmac, then all the pc users being pushed towards apple will be like "damn, and I thought they sucked"

also I believe that we are about to see a g5, and I think that the reason we didn't at MWSF was mainly because steve jobs wanted the show to be 100% iMac focused, but also because motorola doesn't have quite enough g5 yields yet, if thats the case then we should see a g5 in a month or two.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #9 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]TigerWoods99's allegedly intelligent response:
<strong>Hang? Obviously you didn't read the article, because the G4 got smacked around. It wasn't fun reading "the G4 comes in well behind the K7" or something of that nature over and over. Yeah, I suggest you read more carefully.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dude, I'm looking at it right now.

LW Wave Trace - faster than or equal to P4, both get smaked by the Athlon
LW Hummer - got spanked by both
12 sec cross dissolve - while the article says G4 loses, the scores are within a tight band. I'd call it a toss-up.
Five 1-sec cross dissolves - again, a narrow band, in which the G4 finishes at the back. Toss-up
AE tests - The G4 lost them all, because they all required higher I?O than Apple's current bus.

So, you say that's bad. I say it's great. Why? Because Apple's machine in the test, crippled by old technology (the 800 MHz G4, the 133 MHz bus, and the ATA drives) managed to be even considered in the ranks of dual P4's and Athlons.

So, let's crank up the G4 roughly 50-60% (dual 1.2 - 1.4 GHz maybe?) in clock speed, add a DDR bus, and add more bandwidth to the drives, add OSX with it's complete SMP (most tests were run i OS9 with it's less than adequate SMP) and come back again, after 1/20 or so.

The fact that Apple can make a competitive machine with technologies 6-18 months off the curve leads me to believe the new Powermacs will SCREAM.

SdC

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #10 of 48
I'm starting to get excited about the new towers G5 or not! A dual 1.4ghz with DDR and faster bus, with the GeForce4 should be a nice little set up
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #11 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>I'm starting to get excited about the new towers G5 or not! A dual 1.4ghz with DDR and faster bus, with the GeForce4 should be a nice little set up </strong><hr></blockquote>

agreed. but it should also be priced competitively.

$2999 sounds about right for that IMO.

probably won't happen but I think 2999 would be a "fair" price
post #12 of 48
Thread Starter 
That I would like to see!

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #13 of 48
WTF is this faster HD shit people keep talking about?

Aside from going SCSI with a pair of 10K RPM UW HDs in a striped raid config, the only other route is to get the new IBM HDs 120GXP (i think?) and the Super WD with the 8 MB buffer.

What? Like ATA-100 is going to make a difference over ATA-66? Not for most people.
post #14 of 48
Thread Starter 
mslee:

It will for me.

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #15 of 48
Dual Processors NOTHING...

They were running OS 9 on that dual 800...

It is astounding that it was able to do as respectably as it did on an old school OS. Just wait till they redo that set of tests with OS X.1 and even faster G4s. Oh wow. what an unfair comparison.
post #16 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by mslee:
<strong>WTF is this faster HD shit people keep talking about?

Aside from going SCSI with a pair of 10K RPM UW HDs in a striped raid config, the only other route is to get the new IBM HDs 120GXP (i think?) and the Super WD with the 8 MB buffer.

What? Like ATA-100 is going to make a difference over ATA-66? Not for most people.</strong><hr></blockquote>


that's the point I attempted (poorly)at making
post #17 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>So, for all you spec cold-warriors, and GHz bleaters and G5 wishers, and so on, I say:

GET OVER IT.</strong><hr></blockquote>

uh, the last time i checked i didn't need your permission to have an opinion on the matter. if whining means wishing for performance parity with wintels, then i guess i was whining. if the apollo really does come out and is as fast or faster than amd/intel's chips, then i think we're in good shape and that's what we all want. but since when did you become the arbiter of when reasonable expectations become "whining." you're not the police here.
post #18 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by AppleCello:
<strong>Dual Processors NOTHING...

They were running OS 9 on that dual 800...

It is astounding that it was able to do as respectably as it did on an old school OS. Just wait till they redo that set of tests with OS X.1 and even faster G4s. Oh wow. what an unfair comparison.</strong><hr></blockquote>

why was it unfair? what are they supposed to do? write their own OS X native copy of the software titles? it's not their fault they only had OS 9 titles available.

and MP is not all that bad in OS 9 especially in FCP, PS, and several other pro apps that use it.
post #19 of 48
Ya'll seem to be taking this one article as written word by Jobs himeself..

Why? Am I missing something? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Only morons use signatures
Reply
Only morons use signatures
Reply
post #20 of 48
Thread Starter 
Admactium:

The fact that you have an opinion about my opinion only reinforces the idea you think I am somehow campaigning against.

SdC, not the police (I should add that to my sig)
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #21 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>Admactium:

The fact that you have an opinion about my opinion only reinforces the idea you think I am somehow campaigning against.</strong><hr></blockquote>

well, that sentence didn't really make much sense. but yes, in a way you are campaigning against something because in other threads you've taken people to task for being disappointed in the lack of performance in the towers. people can feel that way because all mac users should be disappointed.

i love macs, but we need them to get much faster soon. that's just a fact. in case you're wondering what the "ad" in my name stands for, it's "advertising." i'm in a business that uses macs almost exclusively. but at some point, if the speed gap isn't lessened, the creative departments will run out of ammo against the bean counters on why we should stay mac. we can't get over anything until they get faster. this is a fairly large market. once agencies go, so go print production facilities and service bureaus. the online departments of the marketing and advertising businesses are already mostly windows now.

[quote]<strong>SdC, not the police (I should add that to my sig)</strong><hr></blockquote>

feel free.
post #22 of 48
G4 isn't going to scale to 1.4 GHz...1.266 tops. But the G5 will easily scale to 1.6 GHz. That's why it's going to be in the next Powermac revision.
post #23 of 48
OK, I think a simple mathematics session is in order here.

Latest word from Mot was that the Apollo would not be produced on a 13 micron SOI process as we'd all been hoping but on 18 micron instead.

Currently the G4 tops out at 867. It has been overclocked to 1000 Mhz by some. Let's assume that Motorola has gotten better at it too, and they're able to churn out 1000 Mhz 7450s routinely by now.

According to IBM's best marketing estimates SOI enables a 20 to 30 % increase in clock rate on the same process.

What does all this mean?

1000 + (1000/100*30) = 1300

Yeah, that's 1300 Mhz for ya, 1.3 Ghz. With the most optimistic estimates. And you can be sure that the top-end dual in that scenario would probably come with 1.1 Ghz or something.

The Athlon XP performs better than the G4, clock for clock especially with FP operations. It runs at 1.67 Ghz now, and will soon go SOI at 13 micron.

We need a G5 , we really really do...
post #24 of 48
I've read in a few places that IBM has taken over fabbing for Moto.

The one bad thing I read was this-
[quote] The manufacturing yields for the G5 via Motorola are not high enough at this time to support Apple's anticipated requirements. There are also some problems with both the g4 and g5 cache aritectures when clocked at over 900mhz. These are being worked.

Due to the low yields, Apple is in a position to negotiate with IBM to co-supply G5s.

So, in short .. you will not see an Apple product shipping with a G5 processor within the next eight to ten months. It is just not possible.<hr></blockquote>

So it looks like Moto may have screwed us again. They couldn't get high enough yield and now IBM may have to step in and take over. That would mean a delay in us seeing G5s.

The other one I read was something like "for the G5 don't look at Moto, look at IBM" or something to that effect.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #25 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>OK, I think a simple mathematics session is in order here.

Latest word from Mot was that the Apollo would not be produced on a 13 micron SOI process as we'd all been hoping but on 18 micron instead.

Currently the G4 tops out at 867. It has been overclocked to 1000 Mhz by some. Let's assume that Motorola has gotten better at it too, and they're able to churn out 1000 Mhz 7450s routinely by now.

According to IBM's best marketing estimates SOI enables a 20 to 30 % increase in clock rate on the same process.

What does all this mean?

[1.3 Ghz.]

The Athlon XP performs better than the G4, clock for clock especially with FP operations. It runs at 1.67 Ghz now, and will soon go SOI at 13 micron.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nothing prevents the G4 from migrating to .13 micron as well. In fact, it might just do that. That's another 30% boost up in the neighborhood of 1.7-1.8GHz.

In fact, that's probably what that Motorola exec meant when he said "there's a lot of life left in the G4."

[quote]<strong>We need a G5 , we really really do...</strong><hr></blockquote>

It certainly wouldn't hurt.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>I've read in a few places that IBM has taken over fabbing for Moto.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It would be more accurate to say that Motorola is now subcontracting chip fabrication out to third parties. IBM is one, but not the only one - and in fact probably not the main one. It is the world's most expensive foundry, after all. There are companies in southeast Asia that do nothing but fab chips for other companies. I imagine Mot's leaning on those. There's no information I can find on what's being farmed out where. Given that Mot just reaped the fruits of a collaboration with AMD, I'd be surprised if they're giving up their new, advanced facilities. My guess is that they're contracting out embedded chips that run on mature processes so that they can shed some of their older plants, and only using IBM for the stuff that has to be produced on a brand-new process.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #26 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>OK, I think a simple mathematics session is in order here.

Latest word from Mot was that the Apollo would not be produced on a 13 micron SOI process as we'd all been hoping but on 18 micron instead.

Currently the G4 tops out at 867. It has been overclocked to 1000 Mhz by some. Let's assume that Motorola has gotten better at it too, and they're able to churn out 1000 Mhz 7450s routinely by now.

According to IBM's best marketing estimates SOI enables a 20 to 30 % increase in clock rate on the same process.

What does all this mean?

1000 + (1000/100*30) = 1300

Yeah, that's 1300 Mhz for ya, 1.3 Ghz. With the most optimistic estimates. And you can be sure that the top-end dual in that scenario would probably come with 1.1 Ghz or something.

The Athlon XP performs better than the G4, clock for clock especially with FP operations. It runs at 1.67 Ghz now, and will soon go SOI at 13 micron.

We need a G5 , we really really do...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Silly. This is on the basis that there is no change to the basic design of the chip. What Motorola have said all along is the the Apollo is a redesign of the G4 family, so all bets on relative clock speed are off. The fact that a few chips are capable of operating at much higher speeds is indicative of concentrated choke point(s) rather than a major flaw in the G4 architecture limiting the speed.

Rumours are that the speed limiting in the G4 is due to flaws in the cache architectures, and it is possible that redesigning this could lead to current G4s on current processes considerably increasing in speed. That won't happen, of course, for cost reasons, but I'm certain that Motorola have worked extremely hard on identifying the flaws limiting scaling (and eliminating them from the Apollo design), as it is important to their sales of G4s for embedded use that they can scale the chip better.

Whilst I agree that the Athlon has a better FPU than the G4, I would'nt agree that it outperforms the G4 clock for clock on integer processing, quite the opposite, and the vector unit of the G4 is way ahead of even the SSE on the new Athlon XPs.

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #27 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by mmicist:
<strong>

Silly. This is on the basis that there is no change to the basic design of the chip. What Motorola have said all along is the the Apollo is a redesign of the G4 family, so all bets on relative clock speed are off. </strong><hr></blockquote>

When did Motorola say that? Can you provide a link? I hope you're right. But everything I've read about the Apollo since 1999 always said it would be a G4+ on SOI. We already have the G4+ aka the MPC 7450.

Here's what Motorola said about the Apollo at the Microprocessor Forum in Fall 2000.
[quote]<strong> The Apollo G4 will use IBM's SOI (Silicon-on-Insulator) technology and be based on 0.18 micron process, Bearden said, this and a deeper pipeline will permit the higher clock speeds. He said that the SOI method added 22 per cent performance improvement over bulk CMOS alone. Apollo will feature a wider, 256-bit path between on-chip caches, on-die L2 cache of 256KB and up to 2MB of external L3 cache. Bearden cited power consumption of under 10W at 666MHz and under 23W at super-1GHz frequencies. </strong> <hr></blockquote>

The only difference I can see there is a wider internal bus to the cache. The longer/new pipeline they're talking about is the pipeline of the G4+, ie it's longer than the MPC 7400 which was the version of the G4 shipping at the time...
post #28 of 48
If Apple came out with a 1.4 GHz G4 in the next month, it would be a great thing. But I'm not so sure it will happen, especially dual processors.

You're talking about almost doubling the clock speed of the high end G4.

According to the theories on this board, the configurations of the new G4s will be:

Dual Processor G4/1 GHz
Dual Processor G4/1.2 GHz
Dual Processor G4/1.4 GHz

That's quite a substantial increase from:
G4/733 MHz
G4/867 MHz
Dual Processor G4/800 MHz

When was the last time that Apple came out with a new machine where the 'high end' machine was all of a sudden completely out of the picture?

This just seems a little optomistic to me, that's all. Like I said, I'd love to see the new G4s at 1.4 GHz, but I just can't see it happening.
post #29 of 48
one potential positive side-effect to motorola's recent problems...if they can't produce apollo in mass, it may give apple the leverage to push for motorola to sell altivec and let IBM start fabrication. i have no idea how long it would take to start fabrication, but seeing as IBM already produces G4's with SOI....
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
"Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft--in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."

-Macworld
Reply
post #30 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>
When did Motorola say that? Can you provide a link? I hope you're right. But everything I've read about the Apollo since 1999 always said it would be a G4+ on SOI. We already have the G4+ aka the MPC 7450.

Here's what Motorola said about the Apollo at the Microprocessor Forum in Fall 2000.
The only difference I can see there is a wider internal bus to the cache. The longer/new pipeline they're talking about is the pipeline of the G4+, ie it's longer than the MPC 7400 which was the version of the G4 shipping at the time...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Probably the wrong word, they said they had relaid-out most of the circuits for the new SOI process, but this would certainly involve an analysis of time-critical paths.

The main difference is in the memory architecture, the 256 bit paths imply a fairly major redesign of the cache architecture, and as I said, I believe the yield limiting step is in the cache system.

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #31 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>When was the last time that Apple came out with a new machine where the 'high end' machine was all of a sudden completely out of the picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>

68040 -&gt; PPC 601 pretty much put the Quadras to rest (Apple's marketing nomenclature aside).

What is more important to Apple, staying competitive with WIntel or not jumping the clock rate too much? I say they'll jump the clock rate as much as they can, and if they can jump processor generations they will. SOI should allow up to a 30% speed hike, and the rumours are talking about quite a bit more.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #32 of 48
My point is that Apple has NEVER made a jump like this. Even when the Power Mac G4s came out in August of 1999, shipping delays were so bad that they were still selling the Power Mac G3 towers for a while, and even then, the clock speeds were still similar.

I'd like to believe that the Power Macs will clock high just like everyone else, but if we're being realistic, it's NEVER happened before. Why should we expect this time to be any different?
post #33 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>OK, I think a simple mathematics session is in order here.

(...)

1000 + (1000/100*30) = 1300
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think this "add x% for SOI, y% for 130nm, ..." approach will really work. Just look at Intel and AMD and how far they have been able to scale the 180nm-Version of the Athlon without ever using SOI, longer pipes or similar gimmicks.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #34 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by timortis:
<strong>
The only difference I can see there is a wider internal bus to the cache.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

In fact, according to some datasheets on Motos website, the 744x / 745x already have that 256 bit connection to the L2 cache.

(EDIT) Actually, the reference is <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7451&nodeId=03M9430304504 67M98653" target="_blank">here</a>, in the "Cache and MMU support" section.(/EDIT)

Bye,
RazzFazz

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #35 of 48
Other chip companies have their high-powered desktop processors running at double the clock rate -- this has never happened before either. Apple has been shackled by the scaling problems with the G4 and when those problems are removed there is no reason why it can't suddenly be competitive.

When the MacII arrived it was 4 times faster than the Mac128K. When the Quadra arrived, it was easily 50% faster than the IIfx. When the PPC601 arrived, it smoked the Quadra once you had native software. Generational changes frequently cause major performance leaps ... they introduce new technologies that make things go faster, frequently much faster.

Predicting that something isn't going to happen because it hasn't before, or because you haven't seen it happen yourself, is a fallacy. Reminds me of people saying we'd never need more than 640K of RAM, or that we'd never break the 100MHz "barrier", or the 1GHz "barrier".
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #36 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
When the MacII arrived it was 4 times faster than the Mac128K. When the Quadra arrived, it was easily 50% faster than the IIfx. When the PPC601 arrived, it smoked the Quadra once you had native software.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think he was specifically talking about the actual MHz number, which is undoubtedly a focal point of customer perception and marketing.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #37 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>My point is that Apple has NEVER made a jump like this. Even when the Power Mac G4s came out in August of 1999, shipping delays were so bad that they were still selling the Power Mac G3 towers for a while, and even then, the clock speeds were still similar.

I'd like to believe that the Power Macs will clock high just like everyone else, but if we're being realistic, it's NEVER happened before. Why should we expect this time to be any different?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Well, just looking at the numbers on Apple's website, the last round of 68040s were in the Quadras and Performas. The Quadra 840AV had a 40 MHz 68040, while the Perfroma 640CD had a 68LC040 (no FPU) at 66 MHz. They were replaced by the PowerMacs 6100 - 8100, with PPC601s clocked from 60 -80 MHz, with system bus speeds about the same.

The top-of-the line 68040 was really the Quadra - the higher clock speed on the Performa was negated and then some by lack of an FPU. According to Macspeedzone, the jump from the Quadra 840AV to the PM 8100/80 was a tripling of overall speed (relative score of 52 to 154). The 60 MHz 6100 was twice as fast. So a doubling or tripling of performance from one generation to the next is not unprecedented. I would be very happy if Apple were to pull that again.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #38 of 48
I'm wondering if this guy is someone we have heard from before under a different name? I'm also wondering if he will be around anymore if a G5 does get released soon. I mean, why the campaign?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #39 of 48
Ok, lets get one thing straight, the iMacs are now using G4s, HELLO?

The apollos will be used in the iMacs because introducing them at 700Mhz was needed. But Apple won't gain many sales if they kepp at the smae clock speed.

The G5s have been worked on for 2 years. Don't you think Apple would be more secretive about G5s than n iMac which just uses the same old tech? I think so. Maya was not built to run on G4s, but G5s.

My father works for McCann Erikson advertising agency, and macs are used all the time. Everyone who uses a computer uses a mac. Thats right, even the secretaries Windows boxes were thrown out and replaced by iMacs.

The G5 will e a lot faster than a G4, I hink it will have higher performance then you doubters expect. The PPC is getting far more backing now than it has before, and it has renewed motorolas plans. They were even thinking of ditching the G5, at one point, now they're reseaching G7s.

I expect 1.4Ghz G5s low-end, and 2Ghz G5s high end for $3499
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #40 of 48
Why is the Apollo taking so long if it's simply a SOI G4? Not even a process change. Bear with me for a moment. If Motorola is indeed moving the G4 floor plan around for SOI perhaps they are being more ambitious than we think. They could be in fact lengthening the pipeline to 10 stages like the Athlon is now, using a double or quad pumped FSB, and adding more L2 cache getting rid of L3 tags all together. Keep it a 32bit processor and save the G5 for future use in MWSF-2003. I have no evidence to support this argument but it is a likely senario.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › MHz doesn't matter, neccessarily (AthXP, P4, G4 Apollo, The Naked Mole Rat, etc.)