I agree and disagree. I believe a G5 will be used in a consumer machine, but the form factor will be changing. The current iMac's may stay as they are, but something new is coming.
However, seeing those monster fan arrays inside the G5 XServe, I doubt we'll see a G5 PowerBook soon.
Originally posted by cubist:
Nor an iMac G5, alas.
The Xserve's cooling system is designed to handle two G5s at 2.0 GHz each.
The PowerBook and the iMac will only need one G5 processor. That G5 could run at speeds like 1.6, 1.4, and even 1.2 GHz, and still provide a performance boost over current G4 products.
What's the heat/power consumption level for the 1.33 GHz G4 in the 17" PowerBook? That's still a 180nm chip, isn't it, not even down to 130nm yet? It's hard to imagine that a 1.4 GHz 90nm G5 would be more power hungry. I'm guessing that it would require less power.
One part of the heat/power equation I have no idea about, however, is how the faster system bus effects overall system power requirements besides the power consumed by processor itself.
Can someone refresh my memory on this: I seem to recall that, while Apple's current G5 products use a 2:1 ratio for CPU:bus speed, that other ratios are possible. Will 3:1 or 4:1 ratios work?
The Xserve's cooling system is designed to handle two G5s at 2.0 GHz each.
The PowerBook and the iMac will only need one G5 processor. That G5 could run at speeds like 1.6, 1.4, and even 1.2 GHz, and still provide a performance boost over current G4 products.
What's the heat/power consumption level for the 1.33 GHz G4 in the 17" PowerBook? That's still a 180nm chip, isn't it, not even down to 130nm yet? It's hard to imagine that a 1.4 GHz 90nm G5 would be more power hungry. I'm guessing that it would require less power.
One part of the heat/power equation I have no idea about, however, is how the faster system bus effects overall system power requirements besides the power consumed by processor itself.
Can someone refresh my memory on this: I seem to recall that, while Apple's current G5 products use a 2:1 ratio for CPU:bus speed, that other ratios are possible. Will 3:1 or 4:1 ratios work?
The G4 7447 of the powerbook are fab on soi 0,13. The 7447 have less transistor than the 7457 due to the lack of L3 controller. The 7457 have the same number of transistors than a PPC 970, but the PPC 970 uses more transistors per cycle than the 7457. So the watt consumption of the PPC 970 should be slighty higher than the one of the 7447.
The new G5 ,09 is supposed to have 30 % less watt than his ,13 micron counterpart.
We can assume that the PPC 970 90 nm do not produce more heat than the PPC 7447 at equal mhz (and we should expect a small gain).
For the bus ratios , you are righ : there is 4 ratios 1/2, 1/3 1/ 4 and 1 /6.
The Xserve's cooling system is designed to handle two G5s at 2.0 GHz each.
The PowerBook and the iMac will only need one G5 processor. That G5 could run at speeds like 1.6, 1.4, and even 1.2 GHz, and still provide a performance boost over current G4 products.
What's the heat/power consumption level for the 1.33 GHz G4 in the 17" PowerBook?
Ok. Stop before you get ahead of your self. The Xserve has 8 cooling fans Smart pathways leading to huge vents to push the air through in single, and dual configurations. It's not going into a PowerBook any time soon. It's obviously still way too hot.
Ok. Stop before you get ahead of your self. The Xserve has 8 cooling fans Smart pathways leading to huge vents to push the air through in single, and dual configurations. It's not going into a PowerBook any time soon. It's obviously still way too hot.
OK... you've now reiterated how massive the Xserve's cooling system is. In what way, shape, or form does your reiteration address what I said? You said nothing to address how a single processor at a lower CPU speed, and perhaps significantly lower bus speed, might or might not lower the cooling requirements.
As someone else pointed out in another thread, it's probably safe to assume that even for the top current configuration of the Xserve that the cooling system is overkill, leaving room in the design for adding faster G5s later.
The 90 NANO G5 is a big disappointment unless they have embargoed some critical information on the processor. Base frequency at intro is 2GHz - that sucks. No CACHE size increase - that sucks big time, especially on a processor that your expect to scale. No indications of the new power management features - this sucks also. Nothing in the way of an additional integer unit or other processor improvements - while I can't say that sucks one can always wish for more! One can only hope that this is a short term interim processor or they are just playing their card slose to their chests waiting for IBM to announce the newer technology.
The XServe G5 itself tells me that Apple has developed a machine focused squarely on one portion of the server market. This XServe will be profoundly less flexible that the model it replaces, mostly due to the lost of the AGP slot. WE won't be seeing this machine sitting in the rack of an audio engineer for example.
Now none of this is a bad thing. One can obviously see that the G5 XSErve is designed to be cheap to manufacture, yet offer a compelling postion in the performance equation. That is for the server markets where it will best be able to do its job. It does make me wonder if Apple has another machine up its sleeve, yet to be revealed.
64 bit portables are even farther away. That is, on the surface, this processor does not appear to be the portable capable unit we are all looking for. Then again I'm expecting a high performance 32 bit processor for the next couple of portable revs.
Other than a good overall design for a hardcore server, I don't see alot of good in this announcement. It is almsot like we are going through another bout of the Motorola syndrome. There is more to processor perfromance than just process shrinks, we had enough of them in the old days. I want to see improvements each and everytime a processor comes out.
I think the G5 xServe tells us Apple, with IBMs blessing, is ready, willing and able to make a serious move upmarket. WAY UPMARKET. After reading the Xserve G5 Technical Overview, I think they'll succeed.
At the same time, my gut is saying ugly things about consumer desktops. I really, honestly and completely believe that Apple has abandoned the average consumer. The eMac will remain as a focused product for what's left of the dying educational market. The iMac will remain focused on the monied few. The only enticing entree for would be consumers will remain the iBook.
I've been postponing my computer buying until MWSF. In light of yesterday, I'm buying a Dell Desktop for my primary desktop, an iBook for travel, an eMac for my ne'er do well brother and a 1.8 G5 for my Mom to surf on...(why buy a Kia when you can afford the Aston-Martin?).
The 90 NANO G5 is a big disappointment unless they have embargoed some critical information on the processor. Base frequency at intro is 2GHz - that sucks. No CACHE size increase - that sucks big time, especially on a processor that your expect to scale. No indications of the new power management features - this sucks also. Nothing in the way of an additional integer unit or other processor improvements - while I can't say that sucks one can always wish for more! One can only hope that this is a short term interim processor or they are just playing their card slose to their chests waiting for IBM to announce the newer technology.
The XServe G5 itself tells me that Apple has developed a machine focused squarely on one portion of the server market. This XServe will be profoundly less flexible that the model it replaces, mostly due to the lost of the AGP slot. WE won't be seeing this machine sitting in the rack of an audio engineer for example.
Now none of this is a bad thing. One can obviously see that the G5 XSErve is designed to be cheap to manufacture, yet offer a compelling postion in the performance equation. That is for the server markets where it will best be able to do its job. It does make me wonder if Apple has another machine up its sleeve, yet to be revealed.
64 bit portables are even farther away. That is, on the surface, this processor does not appear to be the portable capable unit we are all looking for. Then again I'm expecting a high performance 32 bit processor for the next couple of portable revs.
Other than a good overall design for a hardcore server, I don't see alot of good in this announcement. It is almsot like we are going through another bout of the Motorola syndrome. There is more to processor perfromance than just process shrinks, we had enough of them in the old days. I want to see improvements each and everytime a processor comes out.
Oh i see, IBM suck because only 6 monts after introducing the G5 on 130 nm, they produce the G5 on 90 nm.
The chip will scale in Mhz much higher than 2 ghz. It's one of the first 90 nm of the market (the production of Prescott is very low for the moment).
The server has heat issue, and the process just started.
At the same time, my gut is saying ugly things about consumer desktops. I really, honestly and completely believe that Apple has abandoned the average consumer. The eMac will remain as a focused product for what's left of the dying educational market. The iMac will remain focused on the monied few. The only enticing entree for would be consumers will remain the iBook.
Apple's consumer desktops need a right royal sortin'. (I can understand your frustration led you to a Dell... Apple needs to address this kind of thing if they are serious about desktop growth...)
I'm hoping that the 'anniversary year '04' will put that right.
It's a shame that the team that designed the stunning G5 Tower can't do a more flexible consumer Mac.
There's still plenty of time left in '04 though.
I'm waiting for the dual 3 gigs. I'd be mad not to wait a mere 6 months.
It'll soon pass. In the mean time, I'm enjoying my wife's iBook and my Athlon remains 'off'.
I'm waiting for the dual 3 gigs. I'd be mad not to wait a mere 6 months.
That's what I've been waiting for as well, but if Apple doesn't have a better 3D card at that time I'm going to configure a Boxx system with a Nvidia Quadro FX 3000.
Comments
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
That IBM is giving apple processors for a product that directly competes with their own products?
Ehrmmm.. And which product is it exactly that the Xserve competes against?
Originally posted by Nebagakid
GIMMIE THE POWERBOOK G5's in APRIL! PLEASE?
We wantss it! Prrreciousss.
However, seeing those monster fan arrays inside the G5 XServe, I doubt we'll see a G5 PowerBook soon.
Originally posted by philby
... I doubt we'll see a G5 PowerBook soon.
Nor an iMac G5, alas.
Originally posted by cubist
Nor an iMac G5, alas.
I agree and disagree. I believe a G5 will be used in a consumer machine, but the form factor will be changing. The current iMac's may stay as they are, but something new is coming.
Then again I could be totally wrong.
Originally posted by OverToasty
Whoooo Hooooo!
... and the G5 IS AT 90 NANO's !!!!!
so that'd mean a size decrease = lower costs !!!! i think apple can give the PowerMac G5 a better price soon
i found this:
(december white paper G5) die size at 130nm: 118 square millimeters
(january white paper G5) die size at 90nm: 66 square millimeters
this is "the coolest thing"
Hehe, try changing that sentence by replacing "IBM" with "Motorola."
"Motorola is ahead of schedule, as usual."
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
The move to the 90nm process shows that IBM is ahead of schedule, as usual.
Hehe, try changing that sentence by replacing "IBM" with "Motorola."
"Motorola is ahead of schedule, as usual."
\\me watches the new iPod '84 commercial
\\me laughs
Originally posted by philby
We wantss it! Prrreciousss.
However, seeing those monster fan arrays inside the G5 XServe, I doubt we'll see a G5 PowerBook soon.
mosr mentioned 2 really large slow spinning fans and liquid cooling in the G5 pb.
well, it's mosr...
oh, and they don't have an archive on their side
Originally posted by philby:
However, seeing those monster fan arrays inside the G5 XServe, I doubt we'll see a G5 PowerBook soon.
Originally posted by cubist:
Nor an iMac G5, alas.
The Xserve's cooling system is designed to handle two G5s at 2.0 GHz each.
The PowerBook and the iMac will only need one G5 processor. That G5 could run at speeds like 1.6, 1.4, and even 1.2 GHz, and still provide a performance boost over current G4 products.
What's the heat/power consumption level for the 1.33 GHz G4 in the 17" PowerBook? That's still a 180nm chip, isn't it, not even down to 130nm yet? It's hard to imagine that a 1.4 GHz 90nm G5 would be more power hungry. I'm guessing that it would require less power.
One part of the heat/power equation I have no idea about, however, is how the faster system bus effects overall system power requirements besides the power consumed by processor itself.
Can someone refresh my memory on this: I seem to recall that, while Apple's current G5 products use a 2:1 ratio for CPU:bus speed, that other ratios are possible. Will 3:1 or 4:1 ratios work?
Originally posted by shetline
The Xserve's cooling system is designed to handle two G5s at 2.0 GHz each.
The PowerBook and the iMac will only need one G5 processor. That G5 could run at speeds like 1.6, 1.4, and even 1.2 GHz, and still provide a performance boost over current G4 products.
What's the heat/power consumption level for the 1.33 GHz G4 in the 17" PowerBook? That's still a 180nm chip, isn't it, not even down to 130nm yet? It's hard to imagine that a 1.4 GHz 90nm G5 would be more power hungry. I'm guessing that it would require less power.
One part of the heat/power equation I have no idea about, however, is how the faster system bus effects overall system power requirements besides the power consumed by processor itself.
Can someone refresh my memory on this: I seem to recall that, while Apple's current G5 products use a 2:1 ratio for CPU:bus speed, that other ratios are possible. Will 3:1 or 4:1 ratios work?
The G4 7447 of the powerbook are fab on soi 0,13. The 7447 have less transistor than the 7457 due to the lack of L3 controller. The 7457 have the same number of transistors than a PPC 970, but the PPC 970 uses more transistors per cycle than the 7457. So the watt consumption of the PPC 970 should be slighty higher than the one of the 7447.
The new G5 ,09 is supposed to have 30 % less watt than his ,13 micron counterpart.
We can assume that the PPC 970 90 nm do not produce more heat than the PPC 7447 at equal mhz (and we should expect a small gain).
For the bus ratios , you are righ : there is 4 ratios 1/2, 1/3 1/ 4 and 1 /6.
Originally posted by shetline
The Xserve's cooling system is designed to handle two G5s at 2.0 GHz each.
The PowerBook and the iMac will only need one G5 processor. That G5 could run at speeds like 1.6, 1.4, and even 1.2 GHz, and still provide a performance boost over current G4 products.
What's the heat/power consumption level for the 1.33 GHz G4 in the 17" PowerBook?
Ok. Stop before you get ahead of your self. The Xserve has 8 cooling fans Smart pathways leading to huge vents to push the air through in single, and dual configurations. It's not going into a PowerBook any time soon. It's obviously still way too hot.
Originally posted by onlooker
Ok. Stop before you get ahead of your self. The Xserve has 8 cooling fans Smart pathways leading to huge vents to push the air through in single, and dual configurations. It's not going into a PowerBook any time soon. It's obviously still way too hot.
OK... you've now reiterated how massive the Xserve's cooling system is. In what way, shape, or form does your reiteration address what I said? You said nothing to address how a single processor at a lower CPU speed, and perhaps significantly lower bus speed, might or might not lower the cooling requirements.
As someone else pointed out in another thread, it's probably safe to assume that even for the top current configuration of the Xserve that the cooling system is overkill, leaving room in the design for adding faster G5s later.
Well it is a mixed bag to be perfectly honest.
The 90 NANO G5 is a big disappointment unless they have embargoed some critical information on the processor. Base frequency at intro is 2GHz - that sucks. No CACHE size increase - that sucks big time, especially on a processor that your expect to scale. No indications of the new power management features - this sucks also. Nothing in the way of an additional integer unit or other processor improvements - while I can't say that sucks one can always wish for more! One can only hope that this is a short term interim processor or they are just playing their card slose to their chests waiting for IBM to announce the newer technology.
The XServe G5 itself tells me that Apple has developed a machine focused squarely on one portion of the server market. This XServe will be profoundly less flexible that the model it replaces, mostly due to the lost of the AGP slot. WE won't be seeing this machine sitting in the rack of an audio engineer for example.
Now none of this is a bad thing. One can obviously see that the G5 XSErve is designed to be cheap to manufacture, yet offer a compelling postion in the performance equation. That is for the server markets where it will best be able to do its job. It does make me wonder if Apple has another machine up its sleeve, yet to be revealed.
64 bit portables are even farther away. That is, on the surface, this processor does not appear to be the portable capable unit we are all looking for. Then again I'm expecting a high performance 32 bit processor for the next couple of portable revs.
Other than a good overall design for a hardcore server, I don't see alot of good in this announcement. It is almsot like we are going through another bout of the Motorola syndrome. There is more to processor perfromance than just process shrinks, we had enough of them in the old days. I want to see improvements each and everytime a processor comes out.
Originally posted by shetline
OK... you've now reiterated how massive the Xserve's cooling system is...
Ok, taking bets now on dates for G5 PowerBook rollout:
January 2004 100/1
February 2004 50/1
March 2004 10/1
April 2004 5/1
May 2004 3/1
June 2004 2/1
July-September 2004 Evens
October-December 2004 2/1
January 2005 1/100 (21st anniversary Mac!)
And, Gar, if you're reading, you owe me EUR:10.00 - you lost the bet on a PB G5 rollout in 2004.
-- Clive
At the same time, my gut is saying ugly things about consumer desktops. I really, honestly and completely believe that Apple has abandoned the average consumer. The eMac will remain as a focused product for what's left of the dying educational market. The iMac will remain focused on the monied few. The only enticing entree for would be consumers will remain the iBook.
I've been postponing my computer buying until MWSF. In light of yesterday, I'm buying a Dell Desktop for my primary desktop, an iBook for travel, an eMac for my ne'er do well brother and a 1.8 G5 for my Mom to surf on...(why buy a Kia when you can afford the Aston-Martin?).
Originally posted by wizard69
What does the G5 XServe tell me?
Well it is a mixed bag to be perfectly honest.
The 90 NANO G5 is a big disappointment unless they have embargoed some critical information on the processor. Base frequency at intro is 2GHz - that sucks. No CACHE size increase - that sucks big time, especially on a processor that your expect to scale. No indications of the new power management features - this sucks also. Nothing in the way of an additional integer unit or other processor improvements - while I can't say that sucks one can always wish for more! One can only hope that this is a short term interim processor or they are just playing their card slose to their chests waiting for IBM to announce the newer technology.
The XServe G5 itself tells me that Apple has developed a machine focused squarely on one portion of the server market. This XServe will be profoundly less flexible that the model it replaces, mostly due to the lost of the AGP slot. WE won't be seeing this machine sitting in the rack of an audio engineer for example.
Now none of this is a bad thing. One can obviously see that the G5 XSErve is designed to be cheap to manufacture, yet offer a compelling postion in the performance equation. That is for the server markets where it will best be able to do its job. It does make me wonder if Apple has another machine up its sleeve, yet to be revealed.
64 bit portables are even farther away. That is, on the surface, this processor does not appear to be the portable capable unit we are all looking for. Then again I'm expecting a high performance 32 bit processor for the next couple of portable revs.
Other than a good overall design for a hardcore server, I don't see alot of good in this announcement. It is almsot like we are going through another bout of the Motorola syndrome. There is more to processor perfromance than just process shrinks, we had enough of them in the old days. I want to see improvements each and everytime a processor comes out.
Oh i see, IBM suck because only 6 monts after introducing the G5 on 130 nm, they produce the G5 on 90 nm.
The chip will scale in Mhz much higher than 2 ghz. It's one of the first 90 nm of the market (the production of Prescott is very low for the moment).
The server has heat issue, and the process just started.
The new design will come later.
Originally posted by Clive
Ok, taking bets now on dates for G5 PowerBook rollout:
January 2004 100/1
February 2004 50/1
March 2004 10/1
April 2004 5/1
May 2004 3/1
June 2004 2/1
July-September 2004 Evens
October-December 2004 2/1
January 2005 1/100 (21st anniversary Mac!)
And, Gar, if you're reading, you owe me EUR:10.00 - you lost the bet on a PB G5 rollout in 2004.
-- Clive
sure
sorry, iirc, the bet was about the ibook G4
and i quote you:
Why not put your money where your mouth is, I'll put EUR:10.00 on no G4 iBook before January
in this thread
but about this powerbook G5 part you're right:
i thought summer 2004 was pessimistic and i have to conclude it was very realistic or even a little optimistic. 6-9 months i hope
[edited some spelling]
At the same time, my gut is saying ugly things about consumer desktops. I really, honestly and completely believe that Apple has abandoned the average consumer. The eMac will remain as a focused product for what's left of the dying educational market. The iMac will remain focused on the monied few. The only enticing entree for would be consumers will remain the iBook.
Apple's consumer desktops need a right royal sortin'. (I can understand your frustration led you to a Dell... Apple needs to address this kind of thing if they are serious about desktop growth...)
I'm hoping that the 'anniversary year '04' will put that right.
It's a shame that the team that designed the stunning G5 Tower can't do a more flexible consumer Mac.
There's still plenty of time left in '04 though.
I'm waiting for the dual 3 gigs. I'd be mad not to wait a mere 6 months.
It'll soon pass. In the mean time, I'm enjoying my wife's iBook and my Athlon remains 'off'.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I'm waiting for the dual 3 gigs. I'd be mad not to wait a mere 6 months.
That's what I've been waiting for as well, but if Apple doesn't have a better 3D card at that time I'm going to configure a Boxx system with a Nvidia Quadro FX 3000.