What would be next if they did go to 3 gig in one step? I am not one to believe the conspiracy theories that Apple will sit on upgrades to make more money. But, would we expect to see the next generation PPC at the end of the year? Does that make sense? Release a 3 gig 970fx in March and then in the late Fall the Power 5 derivative comes out. Even if it doesn't have a much higher clock speed, the internal improvements will increase performance.
Considering that the amount of development work to create the 970fx was very minor (it is almost literally just a process shrink, with only the addition of PowerTune... whatever that is), you do have to wonder what else IBM's processor design team has been up to. This fall will be about 18 months from the initial 970 introduction, which is a very reasonable timeframe to introduce a new processor.
I'm not sure its correct to say that the next 9xx series chip will be a "POWER5 derivative", although it may incorporate some POWER5 technologies (like SMT). I have a feeling that the development paths were forked and they will build on their previous work, occasionally bringing in elements proven by the POWER series. They may also have some of their own tricks to add to the mix.
IBM has a lot of room to make improvements... literally. The 970 is a small chip, with a mere 58 million transistors, compared the Prescott's 125 million on (roughly) the same process... a bit more than double. Even if they don't go to the same extreme as Intel has, there is obviously room for some serious additions.
IBM has a lot of room to make improvements... literally. The 970 is a small chip, with a mere 58 million transistors, compared the Prescott's 125 million on (roughly) the same process... a bit more than double. Even if they don't go to the same extreme as Intel has, there is obviously room for some serious additions.
Okie-Dokie ... I'll pay the rent.
Stupid Question time.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
'splain?
When chips are fabbed in an RDF, amazing things are possible.
I'm thinking the next CPU in the PowerMac will be much higher than expected. Perhaps even 3.0GHz, and like Programmer said, a 3:1 ratio bus (1GHz). Now keeping in line with the present bus speeds, there may be 2.4GHz and 2.7GHz machines too. Hmm. But I think that Apple will use the same controller, and features, that the present machines have. A lot of engineering was put into the chipset, and it was made to last a while so effort could be placed on the next chipset that will probably have vastly superior features like DDR-II, Hypertransport 2, etc. I think the G5 feature set can take us well into 2004, until the fall or winter when the next gen G5 will debut. Remember the dark G4 days? Apple had to bolt on feature on feature to the G4 architecture just to make it competitive. The situation is different now with a modern chipset like the one the 970 has.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
'splain?
I could do some explanation about that, but I think the way to go would be Ars Technica. They have some explanations with regard to the processor design. They even have an article about 64-bit processors.
Isn't like half the transistors on the Prescott for cache? I could have sworn that I had seen that figure some place. So it isn't totally like 125 vs 58. Well it is, but not all 125 million transistors are for the Prescott core (but not all 58 million are for the 970 core...) Basicly what I am trying to say is that more transistors doesn't necessarily mean faster or more powerful.
While this won't be the same explanation you may get from programmer the answer is rather simple it is the design of the processor. IBM was able to start with a clean slate so to speak with the 970 while Intel has been tied to the need to be backward compatible.
Intel simple has to support more functionality due to that compatiblity issue. There is also the issue of RISC and the CISC of the intel product. Intel has to support computational hardware to break up the instruction stream in to operations that the CPU executes. While the 970 does this to a minor extent the reality is that it is a simpler task on a risc based machine.
It took awhile but I think it is safe to say that Apple pridiciton about the capability of risc systems with repect to CISC is rather true. When applying state of the art technology to risc systems you can save about half your chip realestate. Apple now has the ability to scale the processors rather quickly by going to SMP on the chip. For the same cost (as in chip size and heat production) as the Intel hardware Apple could have twice the number of CPUs. This is a considerable advanatage if the can continue to move forward and advance well past the current intel hardware.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by OverToasty
Okie-Dokie ... I'll pay the rent.
Stupid Question time.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
It just occured to me that next week on Tuesday the 17th is when iPod mini's are supposed to ship. Any possible Tuesday significane to that regarding PowerMac updates? I guess its completely possible, if not logical to conclude that the 17th may be a good ship off day and announcement day for new hardware.
Apple now has the ability to scale the processors rather quickly by going to SMP on the chip. For the same cost (as in chip size and heat production) as the Intel hardware Apple could have twice the number of CPUs. This is a considerable advanatage if the can continue to move forward and advance well past the current intel hardware.
I wonder if this is the plan. If PPC can get to dual core before Intel, imagine the humiliation of a dual core G6 laptop emulating a desktop Prescott!? Same real estate but twice as fast and little cooler?
Dual core G5 vs any Prescott? Destroy!
Hmmm. Maybe M$ can smell the coffee on the PPC vs Intel front...(hence forray into Xbox 2 PPC land...)
Could be why M$ bought Virtual PC, because soon Apple users will be able to emulate any PC faster than a PC? Given dual core PPC next year? Then why not? People could buy a Mac and run their PC games quicker!!! When you get to dual core PPCs and the next year's graphics cards...are you really going to notice any difference between Macs and PCs? In their native environment, Macs will be blazingly fast...and in PC emu mode, lots quicker? I suppose this depends on IBM really pulling out the stops and Intel stalling. Well. Intel are having problems at the moment. With laptops showing the way...a dual core 17 inch laptop may make one hell of a games machine.
Well, the Pepsi promotion is still running...and it's going to run a little while longer...eh?
Y'know, I'm at risk of getting more fed up with the Pepsi store front than I did with purple and yellow man AOL thing...
Considering that the amount of development work to create the 970fx was very minor (it is almost literally just a process shrink, with only the addition of PowerTune... whatever that is), you do have to wonder what else IBM's processor design team has been up to. This fall will be about 18 months from the initial 970 introduction, which is a very reasonable timeframe to introduce a new processor.
I'm not sure its correct to say that the next 9xx series chip will be a "POWER5 derivative", although it may incorporate some POWER5 technologies (like SMT). I have a feeling that the development paths were forked and they will build on their previous work, occasionally bringing in elements proven by the POWER series. They may also have some of their own tricks to add to the mix.
IBM has a lot of room to make improvements... literally. The 970 is a small chip, with a mere 58 million transistors, compared the Prescott's 125 million on (roughly) the same process... a bit more than double. Even if they don't go to the same extreme as Intel has, there is obviously room for some serious additions.
Providing grist for the rumour mill.
A few points. Was the G4 18 months or less after the G3?
Given a similar amount of time between the G5's debut and the arrival of a 'next gen' G5 chip...are we to be surprised if a G5 chip with Power 5 technologies hits by the Fall?
If Apple are serious about taking business from the PC platform then have to get really aggressive with performance in both hardware and software with compelling arguments.
What would a 'next gen' G5 offer? The rumoured 40% more performance per clock. I wouldn't expect the clock speeds to be greatly higher than the next Rev B. If Rev B is up to 3 gig? Then the Power 5 derived chip may offer speeds of 2.8-3.2 with better performance and bandwidth and power savings per clock. It may indeed be this chip that goes into the 'G5 Powerbook'. We may even get that hyperthreading thing.
It may even offer a 'game, set and match' altivec 2!!!
Apple has been forced to do small updates for a long time now because of Mot. I would not be surprised if they went ahead and updated to 3Ghz in one revision. A 1Ghz Boost would create good press, and they would have an excuse to keep prices high which apple loves to do. However, if we see 3Ghz soon it means IBM has something else up their sleeves for the next release. mmmm What else do you think they will do with the G5? Just how fast will it go? 4Ghz? Who has some ideas?
Apple has been forced to do small updates for a long time now because of Mot. I would not be surprised if they went ahead and updated to 3Ghz in one revision. ...
Now when has Apple ever introduced anything that far ahead of stated objectives? When Steve Jobs says "by this time next year", or whatever he said, that's not exactly a commitment either. Given the history, how likely is it that 3GHz machines will be available off the shelf in an Apple store in late June 2004? 50%? 30%? It's quite possible we won't see those machines in calendar 2004 at all.
How insane is this? I remember years ago reading about how far behind Apple is from Intel. Now we are looking at beating the living snot out of them! I wonder what kind of sales Apple could get if IBM did manage to hit 4Ghz first? I know they have had 3Ghz chips running for a while, I think Steve was the one that said that. This means that they may have some 4ghz chips running somewhere.
dual cored 4Ghz G6, take 2 of those, slap them in a G6(update G5?) case and call it good. Mmmm equivalent of 4 processors running on 1 machine for the same price that you can get some good quality pcs... That could be the best thing that has happened to Apple since the iMac. Oh and stick one in every machine they make as well.
If Apple were once again to take the lead in the Ghz myth, I can see their market share increasing. I could also see a new speed war looming! Can we say P6 w/ a 50 stage pipeline!
How insane is this? I remember years ago reading about how far behind Apple is from Intel. Now we are looking at beating the living snot out of them! I wonder what kind of sales Apple could get if IBM did manage to hit 4Ghz first? I know they have had 3Ghz chips running for a while, I think Steve was the one that said that. This means that they may have some 4ghz chips running somewhere.
dual cored 4Ghz G6, take 2 of those, slap them in a G6(update G5?) case and call it good. Mmmm equivalent of 4 processors running on 1 machine for the same price that you can get some good quality pcs... That could be the best thing that has happened to Apple since the iMac. Oh and stick one in every machine they make as well.
If Apple were once again to take the lead in the Ghz myth, I can see their market share increasing. I could also see a new speed war looming! Can we say P6 w/ a 50 stage pipeline!
'Now we're looking at beating the living snot out of them.'
If Apple were once again to take the lead in the Ghz myth, I can see their market share increasing. I could also see a new speed war looming! Can we say P6 w/ a 50 stage pipeline!
I forsee an army of gamerz drooling. (Not from envy as much as blown circuits).
I forsee an Intel Prescott CPU shipping with a heatsink the size of a 57' Buick radiator.
I forsee AMD (with IBM's fabs) become Intel and Intel become AMD.
I forsee brainless industry "experts" still insisting Apple must switch platforms (despite even Microsoft's "switching" to the PowerPC).
I see all these things, but not increased market share for Apple. Sorry, but it's just not that simple.
Now through February 28, 2004, buy any Mac and save $300* when you purchase Final Cut Pro 4 and DVD Studio Pro 2. Or save $150* when you purchase Final Cut Pro 4 and DVD Studio Pro 2. This offer is available only at participating Apple Authorized Resellers.
Comments
Originally posted by Kurt
LBB
What would be next if they did go to 3 gig in one step? I am not one to believe the conspiracy theories that Apple will sit on upgrades to make more money. But, would we expect to see the next generation PPC at the end of the year? Does that make sense? Release a 3 gig 970fx in March and then in the late Fall the Power 5 derivative comes out. Even if it doesn't have a much higher clock speed, the internal improvements will increase performance.
Considering that the amount of development work to create the 970fx was very minor (it is almost literally just a process shrink, with only the addition of PowerTune... whatever that is), you do have to wonder what else IBM's processor design team has been up to. This fall will be about 18 months from the initial 970 introduction, which is a very reasonable timeframe to introduce a new processor.
I'm not sure its correct to say that the next 9xx series chip will be a "POWER5 derivative", although it may incorporate some POWER5 technologies (like SMT). I have a feeling that the development paths were forked and they will build on their previous work, occasionally bringing in elements proven by the POWER series. They may also have some of their own tricks to add to the mix.
IBM has a lot of room to make improvements... literally. The 970 is a small chip, with a mere 58 million transistors, compared the Prescott's 125 million on (roughly) the same process... a bit more than double. Even if they don't go to the same extreme as Intel has, there is obviously room for some serious additions.
Originally posted by Programmer
IBM has a lot of room to make improvements... literally. The 970 is a small chip, with a mere 58 million transistors, compared the Prescott's 125 million on (roughly) the same process... a bit more than double. Even if they don't go to the same extreme as Intel has, there is obviously room for some serious additions.
Okie-Dokie ... I'll pay the rent.
Stupid Question time.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
'splain?
Originally posted by OverToasty
Stupid Question time.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
'splain?
When chips are fabbed in an RDF, amazing things are possible.
Originally posted by OverToasty
Okie-Dokie ... I'll pay the rent.
Stupid Question time.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
'splain?
I could do some explanation about that, but I think the way to go would be Ars Technica. They have some explanations with regard to the processor design. They even have an article about 64-bit processors.
It does mean more heat however
Intel simple has to support more functionality due to that compatiblity issue. There is also the issue of RISC and the CISC of the intel product. Intel has to support computational hardware to break up the instruction stream in to operations that the CPU executes. While the 970 does this to a minor extent the reality is that it is a simpler task on a risc based machine.
It took awhile but I think it is safe to say that Apple pridiciton about the capability of risc systems with repect to CISC is rather true. When applying state of the art technology to risc systems you can save about half your chip realestate. Apple now has the ability to scale the processors rather quickly by going to SMP on the chip. For the same cost (as in chip size and heat production) as the Intel hardware Apple could have twice the number of CPUs. This is a considerable advanatage if the can continue to move forward and advance well past the current intel hardware.
Dave
Originally posted by OverToasty
Okie-Dokie ... I'll pay the rent.
Stupid Question time.
Programmer, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand ... how can the PPC 970 be - more or less - as fast as Prescott, yet have less than half the transistors?
'splain?
Apple is keeping me good to my word when I said no new hardware this month.
iPod is king right now.
Two more weeks then!
Apple now has the ability to scale the processors rather quickly by going to SMP on the chip. For the same cost (as in chip size and heat production) as the Intel hardware Apple could have twice the number of CPUs. This is a considerable advanatage if the can continue to move forward and advance well past the current intel hardware.
I wonder if this is the plan. If PPC can get to dual core before Intel, imagine the humiliation of a dual core G6 laptop emulating a desktop Prescott!? Same real estate but twice as fast and little cooler?
Dual core G5 vs any Prescott? Destroy!
Hmmm. Maybe M$ can smell the coffee on the PPC vs Intel front...(hence forray into Xbox 2 PPC land...)
Could be why M$ bought Virtual PC, because soon Apple users will be able to emulate any PC faster than a PC? Given dual core PPC next year? Then why not? People could buy a Mac and run their PC games quicker!!!
Well, the Pepsi promotion is still running...and it's going to run a little while longer...eh?
Y'know, I'm at risk of getting more fed up with the Pepsi store front than I did with purple and yellow man AOL thing...
Lemon Bon Bon
Considering that the amount of development work to create the 970fx was very minor (it is almost literally just a process shrink, with only the addition of PowerTune... whatever that is), you do have to wonder what else IBM's processor design team has been up to. This fall will be about 18 months from the initial 970 introduction, which is a very reasonable timeframe to introduce a new processor.
I'm not sure its correct to say that the next 9xx series chip will be a "POWER5 derivative", although it may incorporate some POWER5 technologies (like SMT). I have a feeling that the development paths were forked and they will build on their previous work, occasionally bringing in elements proven by the POWER series. They may also have some of their own tricks to add to the mix.
IBM has a lot of room to make improvements... literally. The 970 is a small chip, with a mere 58 million transistors, compared the Prescott's 125 million on (roughly) the same process... a bit more than double. Even if they don't go to the same extreme as Intel has, there is obviously room for some serious additions.
Providing grist for the rumour mill.
A few points. Was the G4 18 months or less after the G3?
Given a similar amount of time between the G5's debut and the arrival of a 'next gen' G5 chip...are we to be surprised if a G5 chip with Power 5 technologies hits by the Fall?
If Apple are serious about taking business from the PC platform then have to get really aggressive with performance in both hardware and software with compelling arguments.
What would a 'next gen' G5 offer? The rumoured 40% more performance per clock. I wouldn't expect the clock speeds to be greatly higher than the next Rev B. If Rev B is up to 3 gig? Then the Power 5 derived chip may offer speeds of 2.8-3.2 with better performance and bandwidth and power savings per clock. It may indeed be this chip that goes into the 'G5 Powerbook'. We may even get that hyperthreading thing.
It may even offer a 'game, set and match' altivec 2!!!
I'm dying to see how the G5 pans out this year...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Algol
Apple has been forced to do small updates for a long time now because of Mot. I would not be surprised if they went ahead and updated to 3Ghz in one revision. ...
Now when has Apple ever introduced anything that far ahead of stated objectives?
dual cored 4Ghz G6, take 2 of those, slap them in a G6(update G5?) case and call it good. Mmmm equivalent of 4 processors running on 1 machine for the same price that you can get some good quality pcs... That could be the best thing that has happened to Apple since the iMac. Oh and stick one in every machine they make as well.
If Apple were once again to take the lead in the Ghz myth, I can see their market share increasing. I could also see a new speed war looming! Can we say P6 w/ a 50 stage pipeline!
How insane is this? I remember years ago reading about how far behind Apple is from Intel. Now we are looking at beating the living snot out of them! I wonder what kind of sales Apple could get if IBM did manage to hit 4Ghz first? I know they have had 3Ghz chips running for a while, I think Steve was the one that said that. This means that they may have some 4ghz chips running somewhere.
dual cored 4Ghz G6, take 2 of those, slap them in a G6(update G5?) case and call it good. Mmmm equivalent of 4 processors running on 1 machine for the same price that you can get some good quality pcs... That could be the best thing that has happened to Apple since the iMac. Oh and stick one in every machine they make as well.
If Apple were once again to take the lead in the Ghz myth, I can see their market share increasing. I could also see a new speed war looming! Can we say P6 w/ a 50 stage pipeline!
'Now we're looking at beating the living snot out of them.'
My favourite bit.
Nice post.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by tfworld
If Apple were once again to take the lead in the Ghz myth, I can see their market share increasing. I could also see a new speed war looming! Can we say P6 w/ a 50 stage pipeline!
I forsee an army of gamerz drooling. (Not from envy as much as blown circuits).
I forsee an Intel Prescott CPU shipping with a heatsink the size of a 57' Buick radiator.
I forsee AMD (with IBM's fabs) become Intel and Intel become AMD.
I forsee brainless industry "experts" still insisting Apple must switch platforms (despite even Microsoft's "switching" to the PowerPC).
I see all these things, but not increased market share for Apple. Sorry, but it's just not that simple.
Screed
I hope they release them tomorrow, but I expect it before april 2004. Don't ask me why, I'm under NDA