I dont' quite understand all this Dual core tech. Does this mean that chip "chip" will have two cores each running at 3.0Ghz, or 1.5Ghz each? How will this improve performance (4 physical processors instead of 2?)
Lamo explanation that could be wrong. =
I think it works like 1 chip is 3GHZ, but it has dual cores so all the operations, instructions, or whatever come out of the cores at running at 3 GHZ, but there are 2 of them - so you only count the clock speed once, but it's happening throughout at 3GHz - so 2 set of instructions, or whatever are running clocked at 3GHz.
Not very technical, but that's how I have been thinking of it.
Dual-core chips have dual processors on a single chip. So if a chip is 3 GHz dual-core, it would have two 3 GHz processors in it.
And I seriously doubt it opens the door to quad Power Macs. It's not necessary. 2x154mm^2 90nm cores in a tower case would require serious cooling. Most traditional 4-way servers are the size of nightstands.
I think it works like 1 chip is 3GHZ, but it has dual cores so all the operations, instructions, or whatever come out of the cores at running at 3 GHZ, but there are 2 of them - so you only count the clock speed once, but it's happening throughout at 3GHz - so 2 set of instructions, or whatever are running clocked at 3GHz.
Not very technical, but that's how I have been thinking of it.
A dual core chip is essentially two distinct chips on one piece of silicone with "bridge" circutry on the die. In essesnce it is a dual chip daughter card on one piece of silicone. Each core runs at the full 3 Ghz, not 1.5 Ghz per core, so it is essentially the same as two distinct 3 Ghz chips. The main benefit is that the "bridge" is on the core, and they communicate with each other at the clock speed of the chip, not the FSB speed (currently at 1/2 the speed of the chip on a 970) so core to core communication is faster than it would be if it wer two distinct chips. Communication with the system would still be handled by the FSB, so memory calls happen at that speed.
The chips would cost more, but probably not twice the cost of the current chips. Also if one of the cores is out the other may still function perfictly fine, so it could be sold as a single core version of the chip potentially reducing cost of both the low end and high end of the chips because there is less "throw away" in the production.
The thing that throws me with this rumor is that all indications were that hyper-threading would make it into the design before MP chips were implemented. I know that IBM wants multi core chips, and may be pushing for this for use in their servers. However, hyper-threading should cost (considerably?) less than a full multi-core design yet yield considerably more real world speed gains in standard desktop software and be a good initiative for developers to add better multi-threaded implementation into their software, especially if it were brought to the consumer level computers at or near the same time as the pro computers.
This should be Apple's goal, to get as many apps as possible multi-threaded so that the system can better multi-task across its processor's (physical or virtual) as the simultanious demands on the "Hub's" processor increases as we move into straming audio, video and other information throughout our "Home networks" while still trying to maintain usability of the Hub as a personal computer. That is unless Apple is moving toward releasing a true home networking computer as their "Hub" and finding another model for the desktop access point to that network such as an inexpensive netbooting smart client or an even less expensive thin client. But that would be a hard sell in today's consumer market.
I think all three of you need to decipher what you consider a processor more clearly. Because there are not 2 Chips stacked together.
What is referred to as the processor is actually the core. Because they are processor cores. That needs to be clear. What is referred to as the processor cores are the various execution units and the split first level instruction and data caches. The two processors (various execution units) share a unified second level cache, also onboard the chip, through a Core Interface Unit (CIU). It is one chip. Lets make that clear. It has dual processor cores, but it is not 2 chips. I
Which is why there could easily be 2 of them. 2x dual core CPU's. AMD is already saying theirs will have 4 cores. on one CPU, and they will still have 2, and 4 CPU motherboards.
I think all three of you need to decipher what you consider a processor more clearly. Because there are not 2 Chips stacked together....
Isn't that esentially what I said, granted in layman's terms.
Quote:
A dual core chip is essentially two distinct chips on one piece of silicone with "bridge" circutry on the die. In essesnce it is a dual chip daughter card on one piece of silicone ....
F*%K that! If Apple uses one of these as a Dual processor replacement I'm switching. I have no doubts that AMD, and Intel will still be offering Dual, and Quad processor socket motherboards for their Dual core processors, and Apple would be foolish to sit back, and let everybody fly right by again as they have all throughout history.
Agreed. Well... I wouldn't switch, but I certainly would be disappointed. The 970MP gives Apple options, an opportunity broaden the range of Good, Better, and Best. Caveats: we don't know how many of these blighters IBM can produce. It may be an Xserve only option for a quarter or more. Or it could be like the 970FX, top end only.
Isn't that esentially what I said, granted in layman's terms.
Not really because you said it's 2 distinct chips but it isn't. It's one chip.
THis is actually pretty hard to describe i laymen's because the way we have these terms set forth in our heads now is that the Chip, is the Processor.
But now that it's getting deeper into the chip the term processor is getting used at the deepest root point of functionality of the chip itself, and I think people are getting confused by that.
Which is why I see how people can get so confused about MP dual core motherboards. It's not like there are 2 chips there, just stacked up high rather than next to each other. We are talking about dual cores that are down at almost the microscopic level here. This all the way at the root of the chip. THis is not some big bulky second processor/CPU.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Airslurf, All I'm saying is the competitors are going to be offering dual core systems with MP motherboards. Apple can not sit back, and offer a round of single chip systems while everybody saves their cash for a Dual core Opteron MP, or Dual core Xeon MP. You did know that Microsoft is adding unix to longhorn didn't you?
Airslurf, All I'm saying is the competitors are going to be offering dual core systems with MP motherboards. Apple can not sit back, and offer a round of single chip systems while everybody saves their cash for a Dual core Opteron MP, or Dual core Xeon MP. You did know that Microsoft is adding unix to longhorn didn't you?
I think that it goes without saying that if Apple's competators offer MP system using DC chips that Apple will have to do the same, especially given Apple's lower clock speed chip (yes I know that the G5 performs better at a given clock speed, but Intel did a lot to harm the marketing value of that years ago). I think what should be more important to Apple is to get DC chips or MP systems down into the consumer level computers to help push developers to opetmise their programs to take full advantage of them as soon as possible.
You did know that Microsoft is adding unix to longhorn didn't you?
You did know this is available today, right? UNIX on Windows today. And yes, this is what is being put into longhorn, it is just being integrated rather than an addon seperate package.
SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software. Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
I don't know what the author is refering to that they can't included it currently because of things like the GNU compiler. Last time I checked, Apple includes that, and they sell OS X. Maybe I am misunderstanding something...
My favorite bit is this:
Quote:
...codenamed Longhorn and expected in 2008
It seems like everytime I more recent article about longhorn comes out, the release date gets pushed further back...
For the record I think it's possible for Apple to create a
Dual Socket 970MP system. The question is will they? I would like them to. I fell the Dual 2.5Ghz system is over-engineered (liquid cooling) and that may stem from more ambitious CPU plans from Apple.
However this info seems unclear. It what I'm reading is correct this processor should be called the 975MP or something. It has sufficient architectural changes to warrant being called a G5+ or something.
Being that each core shares a FSB the memory controller wouldn't have to change drastically.
The 154mm squared size of the chip is slightly larger than the original G5 which was roughly 120mm squared. So space isn't that critical IMO.
If IBM could yield these CPUs in sufficient quantity it could help Apple immensely. Apple has plenty of SMP aware apps...proportionately more than Wintel. High end clients would buy a 970MP Dual system. Imagine the clustering power.
...The 154mm squared size of the chip is slightly larger than the original G5 which was roughly 120mm squared. So space isn't that critical IMO...
Might this help with the rumored heat desity/disopation problems that they are having with the current chips since the surface area of the chip is larger?
1) The first version of the Athlon 0,13 produced nearly the same heat than the latest generation of Athlon 0,18. Then they introduced some tweaks (and if my memory is correct add a layer) droppind down watt consumption (by a 30 % factor).
The 970 Fx is not a huge benefit in watt consumption compared to the original PPC 970 : we can expect a more efficient design especially if they go in the new 10 layers process.
2) one problem of the PPC 970 FX is the small die : a 2,5 ghz 970 FX approximatively produce the same heat than a 2 ghz PPC 970 but on a much smaller die : thus Apple was obliged to use watercooling to extract heat from a smaller surface of the chip.
The PPC 970 have a larger die, thus heat on the new process will be less concentrated, and thus less difficult to evacuate.
If you consider point 1 and 2, it seems that a dual 970 MP Apple computer is a serious option.
I think we should see again two version of the powermac : the single MP powermac and the dual MP powermac. (two single models, and one dual)
Concerning the speed issue :
Due to the larger Cache (One MB of cache per core) and due to the high speed interconnection of the cores, a single computer 2,5 Ghz 970 MP will be faster than a dual 970 Fx. But (there is always a but), as the MP version is more pipelined, and dispite the improved branch predict unit, a pipeline penalty may occur with this new version.
We will have to wait for the first benchmarks (who will be based upon a new mobo with faster RAM IMO) to know this point. However, this new design will reduce costs, and will allow higher clock speeds.
<waves hand around> OOOh OOOOOh I have a question!!</waves hand around>
Does this mean that instead of have 2 2.5GHz chips running on two separate 1.25GHz busses, there'll be two 3GHz cores running on a single shared 1GHz bus? Cause I think that would be a downgrade. If the new bus is 2.5 times slower -- lets say 2 times slower because there's only one bus worth of overhead now -- that means that the CPUs can only process half as much data. IIRC a significant chunk of the G5's speed comes from its super sweet FSB, which this new version would lack.
Apple will have to go dual duals. Intel and AMD are going to move to dual core as the next big speed increase, and eventually all systems will be dual core.
Apple however, may get a bit of a jump start on the dual core rage. What they have in their hands is an opportunity for all of their desktops to trounce the competition. Dual core iMacs will finally be worth the money.
On the bus speed issue, its not that important. The bus speed as it stands is faster than the memory in the machine. Adding more cpus on their own buses, or faster buses wont increase the speed of the machine. What we dont want to see is situation where memory speeds outstrip bus speed ( like with the G4 ). I dont think this will happen. The G5 bus is already much faster than memory is going to be for a while, and has headroom. Dont get too hung up on it. Dual core faces the same issues that current duals face. Not enough memory bandwidth at all.
Finally, the G5 has higher clock speeds than what AMD is putting on the market, and you dont hear anyone whining about them not hitting 3ghz. What is that, they have 3200+ cpus, oh, thats the _MADE UP_ number that they use for speed.
Comments
Originally posted by Altivec_2.0
I dont' quite understand all this Dual core tech. Does this mean that chip "chip" will have two cores each running at 3.0Ghz, or 1.5Ghz each? How will this improve performance (4 physical processors instead of 2?)
Lamo explanation that could be wrong. =
I think it works like 1 chip is 3GHZ, but it has dual cores so all the operations, instructions, or whatever come out of the cores at running at 3 GHZ, but there are 2 of them - so you only count the clock speed once, but it's happening throughout at 3GHz - so 2 set of instructions, or whatever are running clocked at 3GHz.
Not very technical, but that's how I have been thinking of it.
And I seriously doubt it opens the door to quad Power Macs. It's not necessary. 2x154mm^2 90nm cores in a tower case would require serious cooling. Most traditional 4-way servers are the size of nightstands.
Perhaps the door has opened just a crack.
Originally posted by onlooker
Lamo explanation that could be wrong. =
I think it works like 1 chip is 3GHZ, but it has dual cores so all the operations, instructions, or whatever come out of the cores at running at 3 GHZ, but there are 2 of them - so you only count the clock speed once, but it's happening throughout at 3GHz - so 2 set of instructions, or whatever are running clocked at 3GHz.
Not very technical, but that's how I have been thinking of it.
A dual core chip is essentially two distinct chips on one piece of silicone with "bridge" circutry on the die. In essesnce it is a dual chip daughter card on one piece of silicone. Each core runs at the full 3 Ghz, not 1.5 Ghz per core, so it is essentially the same as two distinct 3 Ghz chips. The main benefit is that the "bridge" is on the core, and they communicate with each other at the clock speed of the chip, not the FSB speed (currently at 1/2 the speed of the chip on a 970) so core to core communication is faster than it would be if it wer two distinct chips. Communication with the system would still be handled by the FSB, so memory calls happen at that speed.
The chips would cost more, but probably not twice the cost of the current chips. Also if one of the cores is out the other may still function perfictly fine, so it could be sold as a single core version of the chip potentially reducing cost of both the low end and high end of the chips because there is less "throw away" in the production.
The thing that throws me with this rumor is that all indications were that hyper-threading would make it into the design before MP chips were implemented. I know that IBM wants multi core chips, and may be pushing for this for use in their servers. However, hyper-threading should cost (considerably?) less than a full multi-core design yet yield considerably more real world speed gains in standard desktop software and be a good initiative for developers to add better multi-threaded implementation into their software, especially if it were brought to the consumer level computers at or near the same time as the pro computers.
This should be Apple's goal, to get as many apps as possible multi-threaded so that the system can better multi-task across its processor's (physical or virtual) as the simultanious demands on the "Hub's" processor increases as we move into straming audio, video and other information throughout our "Home networks" while still trying to maintain usability of the Hub as a personal computer. That is unless Apple is moving toward releasing a true home networking computer as their "Hub" and finding another model for the desktop access point to that network such as an inexpensive netbooting smart client or an even less expensive thin client. But that would be a hard sell in today's consumer market.
That would be killer if Apple released a Dual (dual core) 3Ghz G5 system.
New Slogan
Dual Dual Link
Dual Dual Core
Dual Dual Performance
What is referred to as the processor is actually the core. Because they are processor cores. That needs to be clear. What is referred to as the processor cores are the various execution units and the split first level instruction and data caches. The two processors (various execution units) share a unified second level cache, also onboard the chip, through a Core Interface Unit (CIU). It is one chip. Lets make that clear. It has dual processor cores, but it is not 2 chips. I
Which is why there could easily be 2 of them. 2x dual core CPU's. AMD is already saying theirs will have 4 cores. on one CPU, and they will still have 2, and 4 CPU motherboards.
Originally posted by onlooker
I think all three of you need to decipher what you consider a processor more clearly. Because there are not 2 Chips stacked together....
Isn't that esentially what I said, granted in layman's terms.
A dual core chip is essentially two distinct chips on one piece of silicone with "bridge" circutry on the die. In essesnce it is a dual chip daughter card on one piece of silicone ....
Originally posted by onlooker
F*%K that! If Apple uses one of these as a Dual processor replacement I'm switching. I have no doubts that AMD, and Intel will still be offering Dual, and Quad processor socket motherboards for their Dual core processors, and Apple would be foolish to sit back, and let everybody fly right by again as they have all throughout history.
Agreed. Well... I wouldn't switch, but I certainly would be disappointed. The 970MP gives Apple options, an opportunity broaden the range of Good, Better, and Best. Caveats: we don't know how many of these blighters IBM can produce. It may be an Xserve only option for a quarter or more. Or it could be like the 970FX, top end only.
Screed
Originally posted by @homenow
Isn't that esentially what I said, granted in layman's terms.
Not really because you said it's 2 distinct chips but it isn't. It's one chip.
THis is actually pretty hard to describe i laymen's because the way we have these terms set forth in our heads now is that the Chip, is the Processor.
But now that it's getting deeper into the chip the term processor is getting used at the deepest root point of functionality of the chip itself, and I think people are getting confused by that.
Which is why I see how people can get so confused about MP dual core motherboards. It's not like there are 2 chips there, just stacked up high rather than next to each other. We are talking about dual cores that are down at almost the microscopic level here. This all the way at the root of the chip. THis is not some big bulky second processor/CPU.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
What does that mean?
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Were are you?
We need ya!
Shed some light on this news please.
What about the 975? ........or the next generation motorola processor?
Im very confused.........roadmap?
Were is it?
Originally posted by onlooker
Airslurf, All I'm saying is the competitors are going to be offering dual core systems with MP motherboards. Apple can not sit back, and offer a round of single chip systems while everybody saves their cash for a Dual core Opteron MP, or Dual core Xeon MP. You did know that Microsoft is adding unix to longhorn didn't you?
I think that it goes without saying that if Apple's competators offer MP system using DC chips that Apple will have to do the same, especially given Apple's lower clock speed chip (yes I know that the G5 performs better at a given clock speed, but Intel did a lot to harm the marketing value of that years ago). I think what should be more important to Apple is to get DC chips or MP systems down into the consumer level computers to help push developers to opetmise their programs to take full advantage of them as soon as possible.
Originally posted by onlooker
You did know that Microsoft is adding unix to longhorn didn't you?
You did know this is available today, right? UNIX on Windows today. And yes, this is what is being put into longhorn, it is just being integrated rather than an addon seperate package.
An interesting tidbit (from http://www.vnunet.com/news/1156587)
SFU is not shipped with Windows because SFU currently contains open-source software, such as the GNU C compiler, which cannot be distributed with commercial software. Zions confirmed that Microsoft is working to replace all open-source code in SFU with commercially licensed alternatives. Last year it licensed Unix software from SCO.
I don't know what the author is refering to that they can't included it currently because of things like the GNU compiler. Last time I checked, Apple includes that, and they sell OS X. Maybe I am misunderstanding something...
My favorite bit is this:
...codenamed Longhorn and expected in 2008
It seems like everytime I more recent article about longhorn comes out, the release date gets pushed further back...
Dual Socket 970MP system. The question is will they? I would like them to. I fell the Dual 2.5Ghz system is over-engineered (liquid cooling) and that may stem from more ambitious CPU plans from Apple.
However this info seems unclear. It what I'm reading is correct this processor should be called the 975MP or something. It has sufficient architectural changes to warrant being called a G5+ or something.
Being that each core shares a FSB the memory controller wouldn't have to change drastically.
The 154mm squared size of the chip is slightly larger than the original G5 which was roughly 120mm squared. So space isn't that critical IMO.
If IBM could yield these CPUs in sufficient quantity it could help Apple immensely. Apple has plenty of SMP aware apps...proportionately more than Wintel. High end clients would buy a 970MP Dual system. Imagine the clustering power.
Originally posted by hmurchison
...The 154mm squared size of the chip is slightly larger than the original G5 which was roughly 120mm squared. So space isn't that critical IMO...
Might this help with the rumored heat desity/disopation problems that they are having with the current chips since the surface area of the chip is larger?
1) The first version of the Athlon 0,13 produced nearly the same heat than the latest generation of Athlon 0,18. Then they introduced some tweaks (and if my memory is correct add a layer) droppind down watt consumption (by a 30 % factor).
The 970 Fx is not a huge benefit in watt consumption compared to the original PPC 970 : we can expect a more efficient design especially if they go in the new 10 layers process.
2) one problem of the PPC 970 FX is the small die : a 2,5 ghz 970 FX approximatively produce the same heat than a 2 ghz PPC 970 but on a much smaller die : thus Apple was obliged to use watercooling to extract heat from a smaller surface of the chip.
The PPC 970 have a larger die, thus heat on the new process will be less concentrated, and thus less difficult to evacuate.
If you consider point 1 and 2, it seems that a dual 970 MP Apple computer is a serious option.
I think we should see again two version of the powermac : the single MP powermac and the dual MP powermac. (two single models, and one dual)
Concerning the speed issue :
Due to the larger Cache (One MB of cache per core) and due to the high speed interconnection of the cores, a single computer 2,5 Ghz 970 MP will be faster than a dual 970 Fx. But (there is always a but), as the MP version is more pipelined, and dispite the improved branch predict unit, a pipeline penalty may occur with this new version.
We will have to wait for the first benchmarks (who will be based upon a new mobo with faster RAM IMO) to know this point. However, this new design will reduce costs, and will allow higher clock speeds.
Does this mean that instead of have 2 2.5GHz chips running on two separate 1.25GHz busses, there'll be two 3GHz cores running on a single shared 1GHz bus? Cause I think that would be a downgrade. If the new bus is 2.5 times slower -- lets say 2 times slower because there's only one bus worth of overhead now -- that means that the CPUs can only process half as much data. IIRC a significant chunk of the G5's speed comes from its super sweet FSB, which this new version would lack.
Apple however, may get a bit of a jump start on the dual core rage. What they have in their hands is an opportunity for all of their desktops to trounce the competition. Dual core iMacs will finally be worth the money.
On the bus speed issue, its not that important. The bus speed as it stands is faster than the memory in the machine. Adding more cpus on their own buses, or faster buses wont increase the speed of the machine. What we dont want to see is situation where memory speeds outstrip bus speed ( like with the G4 ). I dont think this will happen. The G5 bus is already much faster than memory is going to be for a while, and has headroom. Dont get too hung up on it. Dual core faces the same issues that current duals face. Not enough memory bandwidth at all.
Finally, the G5 has higher clock speeds than what AMD is putting on the market, and you dont hear anyone whining about them not hitting 3ghz. What is that, they have 3200+ cpus, oh, thats the _MADE UP_ number that they use for speed.