New IBM Power PC 1GHz chip
In a New York Times article written by John Markoff on February 4th, "The Increase in Chip Speed is Accelerating, Not Slowing"
I.B.M. (news/quote ) will also present several papers at the conference, and the company said that its technology focus has been on lowering the power consumption of its processors.
"Power and heat can add complexity," Mr. Lange said.
One of I.B.M.'s papers will focus on a 1-gigahertz PowerPC microprocessor that can almost instantly raise or lower the amount of power it consumes, significantly increasing power savings.
Sounds like the perfect chip for iBooks. I wonder how far off in the future this chip will be, anyone have any info on this?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: sarasotabob ]</p>
I.B.M. (news/quote ) will also present several papers at the conference, and the company said that its technology focus has been on lowering the power consumption of its processors.
"Power and heat can add complexity," Mr. Lange said.
One of I.B.M.'s papers will focus on a 1-gigahertz PowerPC microprocessor that can almost instantly raise or lower the amount of power it consumes, significantly increasing power savings.
Sounds like the perfect chip for iBooks. I wonder how far off in the future this chip will be, anyone have any info on this?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: sarasotabob ]</p>
Comments
1Mhz Power PC chip?
Look at this IBM site
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/020204/037549.html"; target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/020204/037549.html</a>;
The 750FX is shipping at 1gHz. MWT would seem a real possibility, but I sure that its not the same chip that started this post. :cool:
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: sarasotabob ]
[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: sarasotabob ]</p>
An 800 MHz G4 would crush a 1 GHz G3 at virtually any task that matters. OS X would run faster on the G4, most iApps would run better...there isn't any question about it, the G4 is a better chip because Altivec is implemented so well.
I think it's time for Apple to EOL the G3 in Macs, and move to using only the G4..and the G5.
The 750FX is shipping at 1gHz. MWT would seem a real possibility, but I sure that its not the same chip that started this post. :cool:
</strong>
The article says nothing about a 1 GHz 750fx shipping.
I know it's conventional wisdom that Altivec speeds up OS X, but I just don't buy it. iMovie, Photoshop, iDVD, sure. But not menu selecting, window resizing, disc and network access, and the other things the OS does.
Altivec is good for processing long continuous streams of data like occur in encoding or transforming multimedia, not the mostly short bursts of discrete events that occur in the OS.
I know everyone says OS X is optimized for Altivec, but I don't believe most functions are sped up much if at all. I'll be willing to believe it if someone provides some evidence, but I've never seen any.
I'd personally take a 1Ghz G3 over an 800 Mhz G4 any day, but I don't use iMovie, Photoshop, etc., much.
<strong>No Altivec = LAME!
An 800 MHz G4 would crush a 1 GHz G3 at virtually any task that matters. OS X would run faster on the G4, most iApps would run better...there isn't any question about it, the G4 is a better chip because Altivec is implemented so well.
I think it's time for Apple to EOL the G3 in Macs, and move to using only the G4..and the G5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but I doubt you'll see this anytime soon. At $195 a chip, I believe that the 7445 is more expensive than the 750cxe (or the upcoming 750fx, for that matter). On the $1199 iBook (where margins are tight) this could be a deal breaker for the time being. Additionally, power consumption is a major concern in portable devices. The 7445 uses something like 11 W at 733 Mhz, whereas the 750fx uses 3.6 W at 800 Mhz. That's an immense power saving. Additionally, I doubt that a 800 Mhz 7445 would "crush" a 1 Ghz 750fx given that (a) the 750fx is a more efficient chip (5 stage pipeline vs 7 stage in the 7445) and (b) it has 512 kb of on chip L2 cache (as opposed to 256). So, while yes, altivec is important, I seriously doubt that the G3 will be EOLed any time soon.
I don't think its unreasonable that the iBook will get a G4 eventually. The Pismo and the orginal iBook had G3s. But I don't think there will be a revision until MWNY at the earliest.
These include 512 Kbytes of internal L2 cache running at core frequency with cache locking, expanded width of internal data paths, additional cache buffers, parity protection on internal cache arrays, additional memory mapping registers, the capability for up to 200-MHz operation of the 60x system bus interface with additional bus pipelining,
Cache locking is a feature of the 7455 also. Expanded width of internal data paths seems to me that they widened the bus to the internal L2 cache. That means a full 256bit data path like they say in the next paragraph, again like the 745X series. The capability for up to 200-MHz operation of the 60x system bus sounds good to me, but the next phrase intrigues me even more; interface with additional bus pipelining sounds like a more efficient 60x bus... sort of like what MPX is. Also a 74XX feature. With 512KB of fast L2 cache the need for an extended L3 is less. Now all we're missing is a vector unit.
<strong>BRUssel, OS X is by far much snappier on a G4. It is so obvious to me. Maybe it's because my mom has a 500 MHz G3 iMac and my 500 MHz TiBook feels like a huge leap in performance! Window minimizing/resizing, folder lists opening, dock fluidity- everything is just more fluid with the G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm rather curious. From reading these forums ever since the release of OS X, it seems that people in AI sure spend a lot of time resizing windows, minimizing them to the dock, and opening folder lists. From my experiences, I spend comparatively little time doing these tasks. I rarely use the finder (since any applications not in the dock I can get to b/c my HD is in the dock). Additionally, the time it takes to move to a new column in column is faster than I can perceive. Sure, I get a spinning rainbow cursor occasionally, but OS X is definitely not unbearable, and, based on my work flow, it's much faster than 9 once the applications I use are already open. Oh, I have an iMac DV 400 Mhz with 320 MB of RAM.
<strong>I know it's conventional wisdom that Altivec speeds up OS X, but I just don't buy it. iMovie, Photoshop, iDVD, sure. But not menu selecting, window resizing, disc and network access, and the other things the OS does</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you kidding me!? Have you ever used a G4!? My G4 400 is SO much faster than an iMac G3 600 using Mac OS X. A G4 is almost a requirement for a usable Mac OS X.
As far as 'its ok for web surfing and powerpoint' goes, thats what separates a Mac user from a PC user. A Mac user will use their computer for stuff which only a computer can do (or only a computer can do with ease and on budget)
Barto
But cheer up people. Statements from IBM at the announcement of Sahara indicated that there would be a Sahara 2 -- in the 1+ to 2Ghz range -- which includes an SIMD unit, by late 2002.
<strong>
Are you kidding me!? Have you ever used a G4!? My G4 400 is SO much faster than an iMac G3 600 using Mac OS X. A G4 is almost a requirement for a usable Mac OS X.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but this is BS. You should better have a look at the amount of RAM installed.
<strong>
Sorry, but this is BS. You should better have a look at the amount of RAM installed.
And the ti book 400 have also much slower HD than a i mac . It can make a lot of difference.
<strong>But cheer up people. Statements from IBM at the announcement of Sahara indicated that there would be a Sahara 2 -- in the 1+ to 2Ghz range -- which includes an SIMD unit, by late 2002.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did they happen to mention if it will be compatible with AltiVec?
<strong>
Did they happen to mention if it will be compatible with AltiVec?</strong><hr></blockquote>
no they did not mention it. This is the "big question"