There will be a thermocouple ( either on the board, or in the cpu ). Thermocouples are not identicle to each other. They need to be calibrated before they can give an accurate measurement. . .
I'd like to hear from someone who knows how temperature control systems work today, but I'll guess that it is not done with thermocouples. Some semiconductor measurement made right on the processor chip itself is more likely. Today, I think many temperature sensors use semiconductor characteristics to determine temperature. It would be a natural for a processor chip. It is chip temperature that is important. Old systems that measured heat sink temperature were less accurate, because chip temperature then had to be estimated.
I also doubt that Power Macs would be individually calibrated, unless it could be completely automated on the manufacturing test line.
If you don't feel that your G5 isn't fast enough, you can and will be able to sell it on eBay. And I am quite sure the difference between the upgrade will be around same as the New machine minus the profit of sale from eBay. I have done this couple of time. I think its much better soultion then trying to squeezing last ounce of performance from an older machines. I just dont get this whole upgrade market for your main machines.
I dont think that it is unreasonable that the G5 has an internal thermal diode, and that for precise environmental control ( fan speed ), that diode has to be calibrated. It is the simple reality of electronics that no two parts are identical. The calibration has to be on a per cpu basis ( not per model ).
I also dont see any issues with a significantly automatic process.
I'd like to hear from someone who knows how temperature control systems work today, but I'll guess that it is not done with thermocouples. Some semiconductor measurement made right on the processor chip itself is more likely. Today, I think many temperature sensors use semiconductor characteristics to determine temperature. It would be a natural for a processor chip. It is chip temperature that is important. Old systems that measured heat sink temperature were less accurate, because chip temperature then had to be estimated.
I also doubt that Power Macs would be individually calibrated, unless it could be completely automated on the manufacturing test line.
The G5 chips themselves probably use thermal diodes, which are at least as much in need of calibration as thermocouples.
Apple have said that the fans for the processors are controlled by the chip temperature, the one for the expansion cards according to the total power draw of the cards, and the disc area one according to a thermocouple.
It perfectly feasible to thermally calibrate the machines automatically during manufature and/or burn-in.
The G5 chips themselves probably use thermal diodes, which are at least as much in need of calibration as thermocouples.
Apple have said that the fans for the processors are controlled by the chip temperature, the one for the expansion cards according to the total power draw of the cards, and the disc area one according to a thermocouple.
It perfectly feasible to thermally calibrate the machines automatically during manufature and/or burn-in.
michael
Thanks for the input. The new Power Mac has quite a sophisticated system for cooling. After thinking about it more, it may not need calibration as much as setup. With all the testing IBM does on each processor chip, they could record the thermal diode characteristics. Also, each thermocouple for the drive bay surely could have a calibration point stamped on it. It is then a matter of entering the data for each processor and the thermocouple when these are installed. Such a procedure would also make replacing a processor easier than doing a lengthy calibration on it.
Apple has made a great effort to keep noise down. Somehow, I don't think IBM will be going to such lengths for cooling their blade servers. The G5 seems really nice. I am also tempted to buy a new 1 GHz Power Mac for 1149 USD at a local dealer. They still have these models in inventory. However, my better sense says to wait for a 1799 USD G5. This is the down grade price I hear, if it is ordered with a DVD combo CD-RW optical drive. I don't need the G5's performance today, but I might appreciate it down the road a ways.
you guys are buggin! Who really installs cpu upgrades into their machines anyway? Imacs have never really been upgradeable and when you consider that you don't replace the bus, et-cetera when you upgrade the chipset; what the hell is it worth if you bottle neck? It suprises me that people still think of this fact as more of a case of planned obsolesence, when in fact what we are really watching is an evolution of software capabilities/ functions in conjuction with hardware capabilities suited to what the market demands. You can't real time render with a G3 get over it. If apple never made new stuff simply because every old timer out there doesn't want to upgrade. I loved my G3 but now I want to do new things with my computer. Only new machines can truly perform the demanding tasks required by digital media, and if you don't need to edit video or render 3D then perhaps you need to think about wether or not you need the fastest chipset available. Lastly, if your not even upgrading from one generation to the next why on earth would you spend 700+ to gain a few hundred Mhz. I think people need to really weigh benefit vs gain. In the long run when a machine is outdated (3-5 yrs.) an upgrade is mute, in return if you think a speed bump is waht you need your probably not going to get an equitable return on you investment. Food for thought!
The processor module is a separate logic board that contains one PowerPC G5
microprocessor. Dual microprocessor configurations contain two identical
PowerPC G5 processor modules.
The processor module is connected to the main logic board by a 300-pin connector.
To achieve the required level of performance, the signal lines that connect the
processor module and the main logic board are carefully matched in length,
loading, and impedance.
This gives at least a faint hope for processor upgrades from the lower clock rates to 2 GHz. Higher rates will be at the mercy of what FSB speeds the chipset supports.
Surely the G5 cooling system has to be able to cope with certain user-installed upgrades such as new grpahics cards, which are infamous for producing large and wildly varying amounts of heat. I very much doubt that apple would use thermostats in the gpu thermal section and then have a fixed fan behaviour in the processor section.
Besides which, I don't believe you can pin down the cooling requirements of something like a computer that precisely. It will be dependant on factors such as the environmental temperature and how much dust/humidity/etc there is about.
This gives at least a faint hope for processor upgrades from the lower clock rates to 2 GHz. Higher rates will be at the mercy of what FSB speeds the chipset supports.
Apparently max. FSB speed for the chipset is 1.1GHz.
I also noted that the G5 will come with either a 450W or a 600W power supply, which presumably means dual processor machines will have the bigger power supply, and it may not be possible to upgrade from single to dual processor for that reason (amongst others).
I feel that the difference in price between the 1.8 and 2.0 GHz machines is very low considering what you get for the money:
A 300 pin slot, thank goodness Apple has not been as bass-ackwards as they sometimes can be.
It's got a slot, or two, that's all that matters, upgrade makers will take care of the rest, rest assured. Though in reality the first upgrade products won't be seen untill late 2005, and won't start to make economic sense untill '06.
I don't think Apple will be able able to run the FSB at half speed as CPU speeds increase. They too wil have to come up with a solution that uses a higher multiplier than 2:1, upgrade makers will avail themselves of that or work something into the upgrade card. It seems to me, that the solution would come ready packaged in the higher clocked CPU's as IBM cannot crank them up knowing that there's just no way to stick them on a mobo. The projected 3Ghz would have a 1.5Ghz FSB, IBM will have to allow higher multipliers on the chip if it is the case that the FSB maxes at 1.1. I don't think it's realistic to expect that bus to remain locked at 2:1.
Apparently max. FSB speed for the chipset is 1.1GHz.
I also noted that the G5 will come with either a 450W or a 600W power supply, which presumably means dual processor machines will have the bigger power supply, and it may not be possible to upgrade from single to dual processor for that reason (amongst others).
I feel that the difference in price between the 1.8 and 2.0 GHz machines is very low considering what you get for the money:
upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz
upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W
add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink
all for $550.
michael
This just makes me wonder why the singles cost so much. If Apple truely couldnt get the cost down more for the singles due to the complexity and cost of the sub systems needed to support the G5, it would make more sense to me to only due the final R&D and manufacturing on duals. This would have better warrented the price increase in the eyes of Apples customers, and brought better press for the PowerMacs than the release of the G5 did.
A possible reason for this low price difference, though counter to what we would expect, is that Apple has placed higher margins on the single processor computers than it did on the duals to keep the cost of the high end computer down. I dont think that Apple has ever had a higher margin on their low end machine than the high end one, and it dosnt make much sense to me to do so. Though I guess they could be "milking" the singles for the initial release so that they have the flexability to lower the price around Oct/Nov.
Another thought on the subject is that the price of the chips might not be that different. We know IBM is having good yealds of these chips, is it possible that they are getting more 2.0+ chips than 1.6-1.8's? There was that press release about 2.5 970's from IBM that was pulled, so we can assume that they are getting chips that can exceed the 2.0 that Apple is now using. It would be interesting to see the price of these chips that Apple is paying, and the yield stats that IBM is getting from the manufacturing line.
This just makes me wonder why the singles cost so much. .......
A possible reason for this low price difference, though counter to what we would expect, is that Apple has placed higher margins on the single processor computers than it did on the duals to keep the cost of the high end computer down. ......, and it dosnt make much sense to me to do so.
I think you are correct on Apple's pricing (how much effect I'd don't know) but it does make sense to me. The 1.6GHz G5 is only $300 more than the previous low end tower, when you drop the Superdrive option. If Apple had introduced the low end @ the previous price point, I think it may have greatly reduced demand for the iMac's.
hmmm, $1499 - $1599 for a low end 1.6GHz G5, I'd buy it in a heartbeat and never look back. It appears that if you've got the money, the dual 2.0GHz machine is definitely the sweet spot for price performance.
The reason for the low price delta is simple -- the actual cost delta of the components is quite low.
"upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz" and "add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink" will be inexpensive if the 970 prices are as good as the rumours suggest.
"upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W" might only be in the <$50 range.
The dev note mentions that only some machines have PCI-X support, DDR333 vs DDR400, and 4 vs 8 DIMM slots. Again, these costs are probably quite minor.
The problem Apple has is the the basic cost of the minimal G5 is fairly high.
"upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz" and "add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink" will be inexpensive if the 970 prices are as good as the rumours suggest.
"upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W" might only be in the <$50 range.
The dev note mentions that only some machines have PCI-X support, DDR333 vs DDR400, and 4 vs 8 DIMM slots. Again, these costs are probably quite minor.
What rumors regarding 970 prices? I only saw MacWhispers, which doesn't even deserve the name "rumor".
Nonetheless it's clear that IBM is interested in pushing the 970 as a commodity chip - right into the G4's current territory. I can't find the article right now, but I did read (and it wasn't on MacWhispers) that IBM would be providing a stock northbridge and working with Mai and at least one other vendor to provide stock southbridges. This means that 970-based Linux-intended motherboards might become available at some point, which would do some serious damage to AMD in the same space. Personally, I'm waiting for a 970-based Amiga.
Of course I'm quite happy with the upgrade potential of the machine even if the processors are fixed. The G5s can actually take up to 16GB of RAM, and I'm sure they'll accept sufficiently large hard drive upgrades. With independent SATA busses, RAID striping might be equally feasable. For the most part, it's not the CPU speed that keeps interactive performance acceptable in the years after the machine is released - it's memory bandwidth, disk bandwidth, and overall system design. This is why a SPARCstation is a lot more pleasant to work on than a comparably old PC - and why, five or so years from now, a dual 2GHz G5 with 16GB of RAM and however many TB of storage will be an acceptable machine - in need of upgrade, but still workable.
(If you didn't notice, that was all one big rationalization for my G5 purchase.)
What rumors regarding 970 prices? I only saw MacWhispers, which doesn't even deserve the name "rumor".
Okay, speculation then. The 970 is of the ideal physical size, is made on 300mm wafers, and they are reportedly getting good yields of high speeds (hence the 2 GHz version). This all points to good pricing.
Comments
Originally posted by mmmpie
Re: individual machine setup
There will be a thermocouple ( either on the board, or in the cpu ). Thermocouples are not identicle to each other. They need to be calibrated before they can give an accurate measurement. . .
I'd like to hear from someone who knows how temperature control systems work today, but I'll guess that it is not done with thermocouples. Some semiconductor measurement made right on the processor chip itself is more likely. Today, I think many temperature sensors use semiconductor characteristics to determine temperature. It would be a natural for a processor chip. It is chip temperature that is important. Old systems that measured heat sink temperature were less accurate, because chip temperature then had to be estimated.
I also doubt that Power Macs would be individually calibrated, unless it could be completely automated on the manufacturing test line.
Heres a link discussing calibrating the thermal diode in a P3
http://www.arcticsilver.com/diode_calibration.htm
I dont think that it is unreasonable that the G5 has an internal thermal diode, and that for precise environmental control ( fan speed ), that diode has to be calibrated. It is the simple reality of electronics that no two parts are identical. The calibration has to be on a per cpu basis ( not per model ).
I also dont see any issues with a significantly automatic process.
Originally posted by snoopy
I'd like to hear from someone who knows how temperature control systems work today, but I'll guess that it is not done with thermocouples. Some semiconductor measurement made right on the processor chip itself is more likely. Today, I think many temperature sensors use semiconductor characteristics to determine temperature. It would be a natural for a processor chip. It is chip temperature that is important. Old systems that measured heat sink temperature were less accurate, because chip temperature then had to be estimated.
I also doubt that Power Macs would be individually calibrated, unless it could be completely automated on the manufacturing test line.
The G5 chips themselves probably use thermal diodes, which are at least as much in need of calibration as thermocouples.
Apple have said that the fans for the processors are controlled by the chip temperature, the one for the expansion cards according to the total power draw of the cards, and the disc area one according to a thermocouple.
It perfectly feasible to thermally calibrate the machines automatically during manufature and/or burn-in.
michael
Originally posted by mmicist
The G5 chips themselves probably use thermal diodes, which are at least as much in need of calibration as thermocouples.
Apple have said that the fans for the processors are controlled by the chip temperature, the one for the expansion cards according to the total power draw of the cards, and the disc area one according to a thermocouple.
It perfectly feasible to thermally calibrate the machines automatically during manufature and/or burn-in.
michael
Thanks for the input. The new Power Mac has quite a sophisticated system for cooling. After thinking about it more, it may not need calibration as much as setup. With all the testing IBM does on each processor chip, they could record the thermal diode characteristics. Also, each thermocouple for the drive bay surely could have a calibration point stamped on it. It is then a matter of entering the data for each processor and the thermocouple when these are installed. Such a procedure would also make replacing a processor easier than doing a lengthy calibration on it.
Apple has made a great effort to keep noise down. Somehow, I don't think IBM will be going to such lengths for cooling their blade servers. The G5 seems really nice. I am also tempted to buy a new 1 GHz Power Mac for 1149 USD at a local dealer. They still have these models in inventory. However, my better sense says to wait for a 1799 USD G5. This is the down grade price I hear, if it is ordered with a DVD combo CD-RW optical drive. I don't need the G5's performance today, but I might appreciate it down the road a ways.
The processor module is a separate logic board that contains one PowerPC G5
microprocessor. Dual microprocessor configurations contain two identical
PowerPC G5 processor modules.
The processor module is connected to the main logic board by a 300-pin connector.
To achieve the required level of performance, the signal lines that connect the
processor module and the main logic board are carefully matched in length,
loading, and impedance.
This gives at least a faint hope for processor upgrades from the lower clock rates to 2 GHz. Higher rates will be at the mercy of what FSB speeds the chipset supports.
I wonder if the connector is still "sawtooth" (in physical, not transmittion form obviously).
The other interesting question: Does the 1.8GHz G5 have two connectors?
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
Damnit programmer, I was just about to post that!
I wonder if the connector is still "sawtooth" (in physical, not transmittion form obviously).
The other interesting question: Does the 1.8GHz G5 have two connectors?
Barto
Beat ya
I think the answers to your questions are no and no.
Besides which, I don't believe you can pin down the cooling requirements of something like a computer that precisely. It will be dependant on factors such as the environmental temperature and how much dust/humidity/etc there is about.
I think this will be a non-issue for upgrades.
Specifically on pages 23/24. 94 pages for the technologically minded.
Originally posted by Programmer
This gives at least a faint hope for processor upgrades from the lower clock rates to 2 GHz. Higher rates will be at the mercy of what FSB speeds the chipset supports.
Apparently max. FSB speed for the chipset is 1.1GHz.
I also noted that the G5 will come with either a 450W or a 600W power supply, which presumably means dual processor machines will have the bigger power supply, and it may not be possible to upgrade from single to dual processor for that reason (amongst others).
I feel that the difference in price between the 1.8 and 2.0 GHz machines is very low considering what you get for the money:
upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz
upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W
add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink
all for $550.
michael
It's got a slot, or two, that's all that matters, upgrade makers will take care of the rest, rest assured. Though in reality the first upgrade products won't be seen untill late 2005, and won't start to make economic sense untill '06.
I don't think Apple will be able able to run the FSB at half speed as CPU speeds increase. They too wil have to come up with a solution that uses a higher multiplier than 2:1, upgrade makers will avail themselves of that or work something into the upgrade card. It seems to me, that the solution would come ready packaged in the higher clocked CPU's as IBM cannot crank them up knowing that there's just no way to stick them on a mobo. The projected 3Ghz would have a 1.5Ghz FSB, IBM will have to allow higher multipliers on the chip if it is the case that the FSB maxes at 1.1. I don't think it's realistic to expect that bus to remain locked at 2:1.
But iDunno, we'll see.
Originally posted by mmicist
Apparently max. FSB speed for the chipset is 1.1GHz.
I also noted that the G5 will come with either a 450W or a 600W power supply, which presumably means dual processor machines will have the bigger power supply, and it may not be possible to upgrade from single to dual processor for that reason (amongst others).
I feel that the difference in price between the 1.8 and 2.0 GHz machines is very low considering what you get for the money:
upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz
upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W
add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink
all for $550.
michael
This just makes me wonder why the singles cost so much. If Apple truely couldnt get the cost down more for the singles due to the complexity and cost of the sub systems needed to support the G5, it would make more sense to me to only due the final R&D and manufacturing on duals. This would have better warrented the price increase in the eyes of Apples customers, and brought better press for the PowerMacs than the release of the G5 did.
A possible reason for this low price difference, though counter to what we would expect, is that Apple has placed higher margins on the single processor computers than it did on the duals to keep the cost of the high end computer down. I dont think that Apple has ever had a higher margin on their low end machine than the high end one, and it dosnt make much sense to me to do so. Though I guess they could be "milking" the singles for the initial release so that they have the flexability to lower the price around Oct/Nov.
Another thought on the subject is that the price of the chips might not be that different. We know IBM is having good yealds of these chips, is it possible that they are getting more 2.0+ chips than 1.6-1.8's? There was that press release about 2.5 970's from IBM that was pulled, so we can assume that they are getting chips that can exceed the 2.0 that Apple is now using. It would be interesting to see the price of these chips that Apple is paying, and the yield stats that IBM is getting from the manufacturing line.
Originally posted by @homenow
This just makes me wonder why the singles cost so much. .......
A possible reason for this low price difference, though counter to what we would expect, is that Apple has placed higher margins on the single processor computers than it did on the duals to keep the cost of the high end computer down. ......, and it dosnt make much sense to me to do so.
I think you are correct on Apple's pricing (how much effect I'd don't know) but it does make sense to me. The 1.6GHz G5 is only $300 more than the previous low end tower, when you drop the Superdrive option. If Apple had introduced the low end @ the previous price point, I think it may have greatly reduced demand for the iMac's.
hmmm, $1499 - $1599 for a low end 1.6GHz G5, I'd buy it in a heartbeat and never look back. It appears that if you've got the money, the dual 2.0GHz machine is definitely the sweet spot for price performance.
just my two cents.
"upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz" and "add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink" will be inexpensive if the 970 prices are as good as the rumours suggest.
"upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W" might only be in the <$50 range.
The dev note mentions that only some machines have PCI-X support, DDR333 vs DDR400, and 4 vs 8 DIMM slots. Again, these costs are probably quite minor.
The problem Apple has is the the basic cost of the minimal G5 is fairly high.
Originally posted by Programmer
"upgrade processor from 1.8 to 2.0GHz" and "add second 2.0GHz processor and heatsink" will be inexpensive if the 970 prices are as good as the rumours suggest.
"upgrade power supply from 450 to 600W" might only be in the <$50 range.
The dev note mentions that only some machines have PCI-X support, DDR333 vs DDR400, and 4 vs 8 DIMM slots. Again, these costs are probably quite minor.
What rumors regarding 970 prices? I only saw MacWhispers, which doesn't even deserve the name "rumor".
Nonetheless it's clear that IBM is interested in pushing the 970 as a commodity chip - right into the G4's current territory. I can't find the article right now, but I did read (and it wasn't on MacWhispers) that IBM would be providing a stock northbridge and working with Mai and at least one other vendor to provide stock southbridges. This means that 970-based Linux-intended motherboards might become available at some point, which would do some serious damage to AMD in the same space. Personally, I'm waiting for a 970-based Amiga.
Of course I'm quite happy with the upgrade potential of the machine even if the processors are fixed. The G5s can actually take up to 16GB of RAM, and I'm sure they'll accept sufficiently large hard drive upgrades. With independent SATA busses, RAID striping might be equally feasable. For the most part, it's not the CPU speed that keeps interactive performance acceptable in the years after the machine is released - it's memory bandwidth, disk bandwidth, and overall system design. This is why a SPARCstation is a lot more pleasant to work on than a comparably old PC - and why, five or so years from now, a dual 2GHz G5 with 16GB of RAM and however many TB of storage will be an acceptable machine - in need of upgrade, but still workable.
(If you didn't notice, that was all one big rationalization for my G5 purchase.)
Originally posted by Anonymous Karma
What rumors regarding 970 prices? I only saw MacWhispers, which doesn't even deserve the name "rumor".
Okay, speculation then. The 970 is of the ideal physical size, is made on 300mm wafers, and they are reportedly getting good yields of high speeds (hence the 2 GHz version). This all points to good pricing.