In real world, working on my lap speed, how much faster in % would a 1.0 1.2 g5 be in a 12pb then a g4+ running 1.25??? ( ( as decribed in opening post)
I know everyone is waiting for the 15 but i'm looking into the 12pb,
also, when or if the ibooks will have superdrive?
p.s. superdrive speeds updated?????
On integer operations, about the same. On FP operations anywhere from the same to about 50% faster. On data intensive Altivec operations, the G5 could be twice as fast.
These numbers are really general and I am having trouble getting enough caffiene into my body to make much sense. Don't hold me to them.
The real benefit of the G5 would be its faster bus. A G5 Pb is a ways away.
Is it possible for there to be a G5 chip in a PB this year without setting the magnesium frame ablaze? Yeah. Is it possible to use the same controller chip from the G5 tower? Nope. At .13µ, it's too darn hot, uses too much power for a PB. OK, then, is it possible that IBM can fab the controller chip at .09µ this year so it can be used in a PB? Well, maybe. Am I going to get my hopes up this soon? Not likely.
Is it likely that Apple will use a different chipset in the PowerBooks than they do in the PowerMacs? Maybe.
The PowerMac's companion chip is, by all accounts, highly modular. Nothing prevents the same team who came up with it from coming up with a smaller or lower-power version that only has what the PowerBook needs - perhaps it has some ability to cut power to unused sections, or to clock down with the CPU to save power.
Quote:
I'll bet a 1.25 gig G4 PB will Xbench about the same or better than a 1.2 gig G5 PB.
Regardless of how it Xbenches, it'll be a far more desirable chip to have for high-end professional work, for enterprise work (do you have any idea how many developers will swoon over a PowerBook running a 64-bit UNIX with an Apple UI?!), etc., as well as providing application developers with one more reason to target the G5 specifically (one example, from a recent post by a game developer: The 970 has a native, full precision square root function in hardware; the G4 does not).
Quote:
I don't think PB or iMac updates will be mentioned by Jobs at Paris.
Well, he'll announce what he has to announce. If Apple has something major to announce sometime around mid-September, Steve will introduce it in a keynote. You can't beat the publicity.
Quote:
As much as I'd love to see a G5 PB this year, I really doubt it'll happen. When it does happen, it won't be a lame 1.2 or 1.4 GHz. It'll be a stunning 1.8 or 2 GHz using the new, cooler .09µ process.
Indications are that in the transition from 130nm to 90nm, the efficiency gained by the reduced size is lost in increased current leakage. 90nm is where things get tough (given current technology). Smaller? Yes. Cheaper? Yes. Higher clock speed? Yes. Cooler? Maybe not, unless IBM's fab gnomes come up with some spiffy new process tech to keep those pesky electrons in the wires where they belong.
In real world, working on my lap speed, how much faster in % would a 1.0 1.2 g5 be in a 12pb then a g4+ running 1.25??? ( ( as decribed in opening post)
I know everyone is waiting for the 15 but i'm looking into the 12pb,
also, when or if the ibooks will have superdrive?
p.s. superdrive speeds updated?????
the g5 seems to be a vastly better chip, but it requires one hell of a body to plop that brain into. that's why the powerbooks will have to be reengineered to accommodate more than just a new chip. and i'm sure they're gonna try to keep it as thin as it is now, which may or may not be possible with the heat coming off those components.
also, apple wants everyone to have dvd and cd burning capabilities, so expect the superdrive in the next revision of ibook, with combo drive as bto for those wanting to save money. but that would mean they would have to put the g4 in the ibook, because imovie and idvd (and itunes, to a certain extent) need the g4 and a healthy amount of ram to run correctly. g3's at faster clock speeds just won't cut it anymore. (edit: if the new powebooks ratchet up to 1 ghz and 1.3 ghz across the board, you could put 867 mhz g4's in the ibooks across the board and make a lot of folks very happy. i don't think you could go any slower these days with the g4 without it sounding dog slow)
personally, i am not going for the superdrive until it is at least 8x. had to archive 4 emergency gigs at my old job on a 2x, and thought i would die of old age getting it burned and verified. ugh.
(edit: if the new powebooks ratchet up to 1 ghz and 1.3 ghz across the board, you could put 867 mhz g4's in the ibooks across the board and make a lot of folks very happy. i don't think you could go any slower these days with the g4 without it sounding dog slow)
everything below 1k sounds dog slow these days. if there will be another speedbump for the existing dual usb ibook the next generation (G4) ibook will sport at least a 1Ghz G4
Quote:
personally, i am not going for the superdrive until it is at least 8x. had to archive 4 emergency gigs at my old job on a 2x, and thought i would die of old age getting it burned and verified. ugh.
philips anounced a 8 speed DVD+R. it's probally useless for mac users. but i geuss the waiting is almost over.
Is it likely that Apple will use a different chipset in the PowerBooks than they do in the PowerMacs? Maybe.
The PowerMac's companion chip is, by all accounts, highly modular. Nothing prevents the same team who came up with it from coming up with a smaller or lower-power version that only has what the PowerBook needs - perhaps it has some ability to cut power to unused sections, or to clock down with the CPU to save power.
Does anyone have any real information about this? No. At least not in AI. Anyone who says that 130 nm, low clock rate 970 CPUs can't be placed into notebooks is just guessing. However, I'm getting more and more convinced that it can. From Apple's latest rev to the Power Mac G5 developer note:
Processor and Bus Slewing
To lower power consumption, heat generation, and fan noise, the Power Mac G5 computer incorporates an automatic power management technique called bus slewing. Bus slewing is designed to run at high processor and bus speeds and high voltage when the demand on the processor is high, and to run at low processor and bus speeds and low voltage when the demand on the processor is low. Switching between different processor/bus speeds and voltages is achieved by a gradual transition that does not impact system or application performance and operates seamlessly to the user. In slewing, the bus runs at half the speed of the processor.
The ranges of the slewed processor speeds are listed below:
Code:
Configuration Processor range
1.6 GHz 1.3 GHz to 1.6 GHz
1.8 GHz 1.3 GHz to 1.8 GHz
2.0 GHz 1.3 GHz to 2.0 GHz
In addition, the Power Mac G5 computer allows the user to control bus slewing mode. The options for specifying either high, reduced, or automatic processor and bus speeds are located at System Preferences>Energy Saver>Options; then select Automatic, Highest, or Reduced.
If the Power Mac G5 computer detects a system temperature that is too high, due to high ambient temperatures or other factors, it will automatically enter bus slewing mode regardless of the selected setting.
So, Apple's 970 motherboard architecture includes frequency and voltage scaling of the CPU and the CPU bus. That's about all it needs to make a 1 to 1.4 GHz G5 notebook.
Quote:
Indications are that in the transition from 130nm to 90nm, the efficiency gained by the reduced size is lost in increased current leakage. 90nm is where things get tough (given current technology). Smaller? Yes. Cheaper? Yes. Higher clock speed? Yes. Cooler? Maybe not, unless IBM's fab gnomes come up with some spiffy new process tech to keep those pesky electrons in the wires where they belong.
Yup. Glad you are saying it. 90 nm probably won't be as good at reducing power consumption as previous die shrinks did. Motorola is even having some trouble at 130 nm.
Comments
Originally posted by NOFEER
In real world, working on my lap speed, how much faster in % would a 1.0 1.2 g5 be in a 12pb then a g4+ running 1.25??? ( ( as decribed in opening post)
I know everyone is waiting for the 15 but i'm looking into the 12pb,
also, when or if the ibooks will have superdrive?
p.s. superdrive speeds updated?????
On integer operations, about the same. On FP operations anywhere from the same to about 50% faster. On data intensive Altivec operations, the G5 could be twice as fast.
These numbers are really general and I am having trouble getting enough caffiene into my body to make much sense. Don't hold me to them.
The real benefit of the G5 would be its faster bus. A G5 Pb is a ways away.
Originally posted by Rolo
OK, I'll join the legion of pathetic lemmings.
Is it possible for there to be a G5 chip in a PB this year without setting the magnesium frame ablaze? Yeah. Is it possible to use the same controller chip from the G5 tower? Nope. At .13µ, it's too darn hot, uses too much power for a PB. OK, then, is it possible that IBM can fab the controller chip at .09µ this year so it can be used in a PB? Well, maybe. Am I going to get my hopes up this soon? Not likely.
Is it likely that Apple will use a different chipset in the PowerBooks than they do in the PowerMacs? Maybe.
The PowerMac's companion chip is, by all accounts, highly modular. Nothing prevents the same team who came up with it from coming up with a smaller or lower-power version that only has what the PowerBook needs - perhaps it has some ability to cut power to unused sections, or to clock down with the CPU to save power.
I'll bet a 1.25 gig G4 PB will Xbench about the same or better than a 1.2 gig G5 PB.
Regardless of how it Xbenches, it'll be a far more desirable chip to have for high-end professional work, for enterprise work (do you have any idea how many developers will swoon over a PowerBook running a 64-bit UNIX with an Apple UI?!), etc., as well as providing application developers with one more reason to target the G5 specifically (one example, from a recent post by a game developer: The 970 has a native, full precision square root function in hardware; the G4 does not).
I don't think PB or iMac updates will be mentioned by Jobs at Paris.
Well, he'll announce what he has to announce. If Apple has something major to announce sometime around mid-September, Steve will introduce it in a keynote. You can't beat the publicity.
As much as I'd love to see a G5 PB this year, I really doubt it'll happen. When it does happen, it won't be a lame 1.2 or 1.4 GHz. It'll be a stunning 1.8 or 2 GHz using the new, cooler .09µ process.
Indications are that in the transition from 130nm to 90nm, the efficiency gained by the reduced size is lost in increased current leakage. 90nm is where things get tough (given current technology). Smaller? Yes. Cheaper? Yes. Higher clock speed? Yes. Cooler? Maybe not, unless IBM's fab gnomes come up with some spiffy new process tech to keep those pesky electrons in the wires where they belong.
Originally posted by NOFEER
In real world, working on my lap speed, how much faster in % would a 1.0 1.2 g5 be in a 12pb then a g4+ running 1.25??? ( ( as decribed in opening post)
I know everyone is waiting for the 15 but i'm looking into the 12pb,
also, when or if the ibooks will have superdrive?
p.s. superdrive speeds updated?????
the g5 seems to be a vastly better chip, but it requires one hell of a body to plop that brain into. that's why the powerbooks will have to be reengineered to accommodate more than just a new chip. and i'm sure they're gonna try to keep it as thin as it is now, which may or may not be possible with the heat coming off those components.
also, apple wants everyone to have dvd and cd burning capabilities, so expect the superdrive in the next revision of ibook, with combo drive as bto for those wanting to save money. but that would mean they would have to put the g4 in the ibook, because imovie and idvd (and itunes, to a certain extent) need the g4 and a healthy amount of ram to run correctly. g3's at faster clock speeds just won't cut it anymore. (edit: if the new powebooks ratchet up to 1 ghz and 1.3 ghz across the board, you could put 867 mhz g4's in the ibooks across the board and make a lot of folks very happy. i don't think you could go any slower these days with the g4 without it sounding dog slow)
personally, i am not going for the superdrive until it is at least 8x. had to archive 4 emergency gigs at my old job on a 2x, and thought i would die of old age getting it burned and verified. ugh.
Originally posted by rok
(edit: if the new powebooks ratchet up to 1 ghz and 1.3 ghz across the board, you could put 867 mhz g4's in the ibooks across the board and make a lot of folks very happy. i don't think you could go any slower these days with the g4 without it sounding dog slow)
everything below 1k sounds dog slow these days. if there will be another speedbump for the existing dual usb ibook the next generation (G4) ibook will sport at least a 1Ghz G4
personally, i am not going for the superdrive until it is at least 8x. had to archive 4 emergency gigs at my old job on a 2x, and thought i would die of old age getting it burned and verified. ugh.
philips anounced a 8 speed DVD+R. it's probally useless for mac users. but i geuss the waiting is almost over.
Originally posted by Amorph
Is it likely that Apple will use a different chipset in the PowerBooks than they do in the PowerMacs? Maybe.
The PowerMac's companion chip is, by all accounts, highly modular. Nothing prevents the same team who came up with it from coming up with a smaller or lower-power version that only has what the PowerBook needs - perhaps it has some ability to cut power to unused sections, or to clock down with the CPU to save power.
Does anyone have any real information about this? No. At least not in AI. Anyone who says that 130 nm, low clock rate 970 CPUs can't be placed into notebooks is just guessing. However, I'm getting more and more convinced that it can. From Apple's latest rev to the Power Mac G5 developer note:
Processor and Bus Slewing
To lower power consumption, heat generation, and fan noise, the Power Mac G5 computer incorporates an automatic power management technique called bus slewing. Bus slewing is designed to run at high processor and bus speeds and high voltage when the demand on the processor is high, and to run at low processor and bus speeds and low voltage when the demand on the processor is low. Switching between different processor/bus speeds and voltages is achieved by a gradual transition that does not impact system or application performance and operates seamlessly to the user. In slewing, the bus runs at half the speed of the processor.
The ranges of the slewed processor speeds are listed below:
Code:
Configuration Processor range
1.6 GHz 1.3 GHz to 1.6 GHz
1.8 GHz 1.3 GHz to 1.8 GHz
2.0 GHz 1.3 GHz to 2.0 GHz
In addition, the Power Mac G5 computer allows the user to control bus slewing mode. The options for specifying either high, reduced, or automatic processor and bus speeds are located at System Preferences>Energy Saver>Options; then select Automatic, Highest, or Reduced.
If the Power Mac G5 computer detects a system temperature that is too high, due to high ambient temperatures or other factors, it will automatically enter bus slewing mode regardless of the selected setting.
So, Apple's 970 motherboard architecture includes frequency and voltage scaling of the CPU and the CPU bus. That's about all it needs to make a 1 to 1.4 GHz G5 notebook.
Indications are that in the transition from 130nm to 90nm, the efficiency gained by the reduced size is lost in increased current leakage. 90nm is where things get tough (given current technology). Smaller? Yes. Cheaper? Yes. Higher clock speed? Yes. Cooler? Maybe not, unless IBM's fab gnomes come up with some spiffy new process tech to keep those pesky electrons in the wires where they belong.
Yup. Glad you are saying it. 90 nm probably won't be as good at reducing power consumption as previous die shrinks did. Motorola is even having some trouble at 130 nm.
Originally posted by THT
Motorola is even having some trouble at 130 nm.
Motorola, however, also has trouble trouble tying its shoes and remembering its own phone number.