I am not so sure about that. It is true IBM has already experience in dual core designs, but this has only to do with server chips. For the Macintosh, this means we will easily have dual core in Power Mac and XServe (well, after the current problems that IBM is facing are resolved). But what about the Powerbooks? Apart the scheduled announcement of dual core PowerPC processors from Freescale this fall (the only ones that could be used in a slim notebook like a Powerbook), there is nothing in the horizon. We are left with the hope that things will go well on Freescale's side. And it remains to see if Apple finally chooses to go with the RapidIO interface that those chips will bring with them.
You make it sound as if there is a huge difference between Server versus Workstation CPU. There isn't much of a difference other than the Server chips are beefier in crucial areas. Stripping out stuff to make a Workstation cpu is likely easier.
Powerbooks. Well that depends on what IBM does for the next cpu revision. See Rickag's post in the huge PM thread. IBM has options that they can utilize to reduce dissipation. Apple may go Freescale or they might go G5 if IBM can produce a G5 running 10-15% cooler.
I don't think Apple wants Freescale on their premium laptops. The iBook? Fine. But consumers will likely want a G5 in the top Powerbooks.
well from what i understand IBM's server work is exactly what will lead to better technologies for the laptop chips. Because these arent just servers but racks and operate with little ventialation, are very thin blah blah. So i thought that was what was gonna push the innovation of a chip like the g5 for a laptop or a dual core g4.
i would just be happy with the dual core dammit! they need to get that out for me before i buy one of those damn things
I am not so sure about that. It is true IBM has already experience in dual core designs, but this has only to do with server chips.
Note entirely true, they have experience with custom ASIC designs based on embedded PowerPCs like the 440 core. With the BlueGene/L-processor as a prime example. It's a high performance, dual core processor with extremely low power consumption.
The 970 is derived from a dual core design after all and they would've been stupid if they didn't se dual core procesosrs for the consumer segment down the line.
You make it sound as if there is a huge difference between Server versus Workstation CPU. There isn't much of a difference other than the Server chips are beefier in crucial areas. Stripping out stuff to make a Workstation cpu is likely easier.
I don't think I said something different from what you are saying now .
Quote:
I don't think Apple wants Freescale on their premium laptops. The iBook? Fine. But consumers will likely want a G5 in the top Powerbooks.
I have a similar feeling. But right now, Freescale is the only option for Apple's notebooks. I guess we will see next year.
Note entirely true, they have experience with custom ASIC designs based on embedded PowerPCs like the 440 core. With the BlueGene/L-processor as a prime example. It's a high performance, dual core processor with extremely low power consumption.
That's exactly the problem. The 440 core, if I am not mistaken, cannot exceed 700 MHz in clock frequency. You can of course use many of them (4?) in a Powerbook and have a strong system, but only when you run specialized software that knows how to exploit this architecture.
At this time, IBM has nothing that could be used in the Powerbooks. At least nothing concrete for which information would be publicly available. I have no problem to be proved wrong on this, if someone can shed some light.
That's exactly the problem. The 440 core, if I am not mistaken, cannot exceed 700 MHz in clock frequency. You can of course use many of them (4?) in a Powerbook and have a strong system, but only when you run specialized software that knows how to exploit this architecture.
I'm not saying that IBM should use the 440 core, nor the POWER5. All I'm saying is that they have plenty of experience of doing dual core processors, and they have delivered them for several years. That's something that no competitor have done. AMD, Intel and Freescale are new to this game, IBM is not.
All I'm saying is that they have plenty of experience of doing dual core processors, and they have delivered them for several years. That's something that no competitor have done. AMD, Intel and Freescale are new to this game, IBM is not.
That's what I am saying too. IBM is first and old in this game. The question now, is if Apple will manage to go dual core well before the competitors. Of course this is not totally left to Apple, IBM will play a major role here, but it would be sad to see IBM's experience on such technologies not become a strategic advantage for Apple, when the competitors say clearly they will take the IBM route (multi-core and efficiency).
I have to say teh Q1 2005 for g5 dual coare.... is definitely not gonna happen. Thats a major over haul of the whole system in 6-9 months from announcement of the current g5s... or 3-6 months from shipment of the high end version.
Apple would shoot themselves in the foot after stressing out on the shipment of these g5s.
I have to say teh Q1 2005 for g5 dual coare.... is definitely not gonna happen. Thats a major over haul of the whole system in 6-9 months from announcement of the current g5s... or 3-6 months from shipment of the high end version.
Apple would shoot themselves in the foot after stressing out on the shipment of these g5s.
Actually, according to the 970MP document floating around it would hardly involve any changes to the existing systems at all. Drop the dual core chip into the exiting CPU slots and ship them out the door.
I'd say that Q1 is optimistic alright -- March at the earliest. Q2 more likely.
I don't think Dual Core Powermacs are coming until late summer. Not because Apple won't be able to get the chips but because after the next refresh I think we just have to wait out another revision.
I'm hoping the next refresh brings PCI Express and more motherboard tweaks. Then Apple need only slap in the DC CPUs on the next refresh. I also want to see them move the entry level Powermac back to $1500 and reduce the price of the Xserves by $500 across the board.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
I am not so sure about that. It is true IBM has already experience in dual core designs, but this has only to do with server chips. For the Macintosh, this means we will easily have dual core in Power Mac and XServe (well, after the current problems that IBM is facing are resolved). But what about the Powerbooks? Apart the scheduled announcement of dual core PowerPC processors from Freescale this fall (the only ones that could be used in a slim notebook like a Powerbook), there is nothing in the horizon. We are left with the hope that things will go well on Freescale's side. And it remains to see if Apple finally chooses to go with the RapidIO interface that those chips will bring with them.
You make it sound as if there is a huge difference between Server versus Workstation CPU. There isn't much of a difference other than the Server chips are beefier in crucial areas. Stripping out stuff to make a Workstation cpu is likely easier.
Powerbooks. Well that depends on what IBM does for the next cpu revision. See Rickag's post in the huge PM thread. IBM has options that they can utilize to reduce dissipation. Apple may go Freescale or they might go G5 if IBM can produce a G5 running 10-15% cooler.
I don't think Apple wants Freescale on their premium laptops. The iBook? Fine. But consumers will likely want a G5 in the top Powerbooks.
i would just be happy with the dual core dammit! they need to get that out for me before i buy one of those damn things
Originally posted by PB
I am not so sure about that. It is true IBM has already experience in dual core designs, but this has only to do with server chips.
Note entirely true, they have experience with custom ASIC designs based on embedded PowerPCs like the 440 core. With the BlueGene/L-processor as a prime example. It's a high performance, dual core processor with extremely low power consumption.
The 970 is derived from a dual core design after all and they would've been stupid if they didn't se dual core procesosrs for the consumer segment down the line.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You make it sound as if there is a huge difference between Server versus Workstation CPU. There isn't much of a difference other than the Server chips are beefier in crucial areas. Stripping out stuff to make a Workstation cpu is likely easier.
I don't think I said something different from what you are saying now
I don't think Apple wants Freescale on their premium laptops. The iBook? Fine. But consumers will likely want a G5 in the top Powerbooks.
I have a similar feeling. But right now, Freescale is the only option for Apple's notebooks. I guess we will see next year.
Originally posted by Henriok
Note entirely true, they have experience with custom ASIC designs based on embedded PowerPCs like the 440 core. With the BlueGene/L-processor as a prime example. It's a high performance, dual core processor with extremely low power consumption.
That's exactly the problem. The 440 core, if I am not mistaken, cannot exceed 700 MHz in clock frequency. You can of course use many of them (4?) in a Powerbook and have a strong system, but only when you run specialized software that knows how to exploit this architecture.
At this time, IBM has nothing that could be used in the Powerbooks. At least nothing concrete for which information would be publicly available. I have no problem to be proved wrong on this, if someone can shed some light.
Originally posted by PB
That's exactly the problem. The 440 core, if I am not mistaken, cannot exceed 700 MHz in clock frequency. You can of course use many of them (4?) in a Powerbook and have a strong system, but only when you run specialized software that knows how to exploit this architecture.
I'm not saying that IBM should use the 440 core, nor the POWER5. All I'm saying is that they have plenty of experience of doing dual core processors, and they have delivered them for several years. That's something that no competitor have done. AMD, Intel and Freescale are new to this game, IBM is not.
Originally posted by PB
That's exactly the problem. The 440 core, if I am not mistaken, cannot exceed 700 MHz in clock frequency.
I though that IBM offered a model called the 440GX that clocks to 800Mhz?
Originally posted by Henriok
All I'm saying is that they have plenty of experience of doing dual core processors, and they have delivered them for several years. That's something that no competitor have done. AMD, Intel and Freescale are new to this game, IBM is not.
That's what I am saying too. IBM is first and old in this game. The question now, is if Apple will manage to go dual core well before the competitors. Of course this is not totally left to Apple, IBM will play a major role here, but it would be sad to see IBM's experience on such technologies not become a strategic advantage for Apple, when the competitors say clearly they will take the IBM route (multi-core and efficiency).
Originally posted by Eric_Z
I though that IBM offered a model called the 440GX that clocks to 800Mhz?
Yes, that's right but it doesn't change nothing in a radical way.
Freescale to detail dual-core PowerPC G4
Dual-core G4 on the way
a current G5 2.5 tower with anything BTO, it seems like we'll have plenty of time to save for a dual core Antares Quadra Mac.
The general idea coming out in all of these posts is WAIT!
You'll be glad you did.
In the meantime you can always order a new HD display and have it ready for your new tower when it becomes available.
Originally posted by onlooker
DC 2006.
Dito.
Freescale Dual-Core G4: Q1/2006
IBM Dual-Core G5: Q1/2005
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
Freescale Dual-Core G4: Q1/2006
I think this is just a tad pessimistic..
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
IBM Dual-Core G5: Q1/2005
..and this a tad optimistic.
Apple would shoot themselves in the foot after stressing out on the shipment of these g5s.
Today... dual across the line
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
We'll see
Today... dual across the line
You seem to be very certain or to know something others here ignore
Originally posted by emig647
I have to say teh Q1 2005 for g5 dual coare.... is definitely not gonna happen. Thats a major over haul of the whole system in 6-9 months from announcement of the current g5s... or 3-6 months from shipment of the high end version.
Apple would shoot themselves in the foot after stressing out on the shipment of these g5s.
Actually, according to the 970MP document floating around it would hardly involve any changes to the existing systems at all. Drop the dual core chip into the exiting CPU slots and ship them out the door.
I'd say that Q1 is optimistic alright -- March at the earliest. Q2 more likely.
I'm hoping the next refresh brings PCI Express and more motherboard tweaks. Then Apple need only slap in the DC CPUs on the next refresh. I also want to see them move the entry level Powermac back to $1500 and reduce the price of the Xserves by $500 across the board.
In the mean time, it might be best to put your money in your company matched savings fund, 6 month CD or under the matress.
I figure, by the time these machines are ready to go, I'll have enough saved for a loaded Quadra Tower AND a 30" display AND a good quality
analog to digital interface running ProBand with 64 bit sound quality.
Me SO excited! :-)