GPUL on October 15 - "CONFIRMED" by Moki?

i have questionsi have questions
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
From MacNN... a little quote:





moki

Addicted to MacNN





Posts: 1491

Location: Rochester, NY

Registered: Sep 2000

Status: Offline

Posted on : 10-09-2002 03:32 AM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by Codename:





quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering GPUL will be neutered in comparison to the POWER4, especially in the area of L3 cache, I doubt it will be able to keep up with Pentiums at twice the clockspeed even if it is in a dual core configuration like the POWER4.



Also consider that AMD's Athlon are rated as a 12-way superscalar design while GPUL is only an 8-way design. Folks, the GPUL is nothing to drool over.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Spoken by someone who has no idea what the GP-UL is actually like.



October 15th will be fun, folks, hang in there.





__________________

Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.

Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro 1.0.6 for OS X is released!





OK, Moki... just how fun will it be?
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 141
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    I think he's just referring to what will presumably be revealed about the GPUL at the Microprocessor Forum, October 15.
  • Reply 2 of 141
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by frawgz:

    <strong>I think he's just referring to what will presumably be revealed about the GPUL at the Microprocessor Forum, October 15.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    you are right : i think these boards will become very active the 15
  • Reply 3 of 141
    mount_my_floppymount_my_floppy Posts: 913member
    Wait moki is from rochester? I thought moki worked for apple <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 4 of 141
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    No moki runs <a href="http://www.ambrosiaSW.com"; target="_blank">Ambrosia software</a>



    From memory I can't remember if Athlons are 12-way superscalar or not (I have a hunch they aren't unless it changed lately) but it doesn't really matter. They don't dispatch as many instructions per cycle as the IBM chip.



    Just as a reference point the Hammer series dispatches 3 instructions per cycle while the IBM chip dispatches 5. If that's incorrect feel free to fix it someone it has been a while since I last dealt with the Hammer series. I'm fairly certain it is right though.



    More importantly though everything in processor design is a trade-off (it is in all engineering). Going too far with something can just as easily reduce output performance as not going far enough and at the end of the day it is only the total package that matters. Taking a couple of simple buzz words out of context, as codename has done, is meaningless.



    It's quite clear he doesn't really have a clue



    Edit: Oops I forgot what I was meant to be saying.



    [ 10-09-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 141
    mokimoki Posts: 551member
    [quote]Originally posted by frawgz:

    <strong>I think he's just referring to what will presumably be revealed about the GPUL at the Microprocessor Forum, October 15.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Right, exactly...
  • Reply 6 of 141
    a random walka random walk Posts: 37member
    With all due respect Moki then why,



    1. post a GPUL defense in a Mac forum and

    2. end it with the teasing tag of "hang in there..."



    Why would we need to hang in there if the GPUL has nothing to do with future Macs? And why bother defending a chip that's irrelevant to the Mac community?
  • Reply 7 of 141
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    We all know it's coming. Apple needs something better or they're dead. This is tech, improvements are always on the way: even at half Moore's Law, Apple will eventually update it's products.
  • Reply 8 of 141
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,423member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>We all know it's coming. Apple needs something better or they're dead. This is tech, improvements are always on the way: even at half Moore's Law, Apple will eventually update it's products.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Matsu. Come on man. It's one thing to complain about price but please don't post incorrect statements like "even at half Moore's Law" Apple has hit Moore's law just as well as AMD/Intel. Moore's law is not about Megahertz but about Transistor Density. Please don't Sh!t on these forums with blatant lies. Thank you.
  • Reply 9 of 141
    tomb of the unknowntomb of the unknown Posts: 364member
    [quote]Originally posted by A Random Walk:

    <strong>With all due respect Moki then why,



    1. post a GPUL defense in a Mac forum and

    2. end it with the teasing tag of "hang in there..."



    Why would we need to hang in there if the GPUL has nothing to do with future Macs? And why bother defending a chip that's irrelevant to the Mac community?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    You're missing the point. Check the title of the MPF session IBM will be delivering. Contrast that to Codename's assertion that the GPUL will be "nothing to drool over". That's all that Moki is saying.
  • Reply 10 of 141
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Moore's Law is as you described, but in popular usage, it has more to do with pace/perception of relative developments. We expect to perceive chips not only as X times faster than chips of X months ago, but also to keep pace with competitors products -- the fastest developer ussually setting the benchmark. Review sites talk about product cycles, and even get antsy when then 'next generatioon' isn't out 'on-time', they talk about missed 'roll-outs' even when companies haven't specifically announced any such roll-out. Apple stalled, badly, and even though they're back on the pace, they always seem to be moving at half speed. I think it's appropriate considering Moore's Law isn't even a law really.
  • Reply 11 of 141
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,423member
    That's a very liberal interpretation. Moore's Law is a basic dictum that predicts transistor count will double every 18 months. When considering Apple we consider the advancements of both G3 and G4 based machines.



    I will concur that PPC proc development has been slower than the competition but it's slightly misleading to say it's been half of Moore's law.
  • Reply 12 of 141
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]Considering GPUL will be neutered in comparison to the POWER4, especially in the area of L3 cache<hr></blockquote>



    Remember the Powerlogix L3 cache document: upping L3 cache spec.s doesn't make a huge difference for desktop applications.



    Even if IBM announce GP-UL on 15/10 and it's fantastic, will they actually mention Apple if Apple are going to use it? :/



    On a different note, my G3/400 L2 upgrade for my 6400 arrived today .
  • Reply 13 of 141
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    L3 cache may have nothing to do with anything if there is 6.4 GB/s memory bandwidth...
  • Reply 14 of 141
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Hint: Moki doesn't know when the next revision of Power Macs is coming, and he doesn't know what the architecture looks like. I doubt very much a shareware company like Ambrosia is on Apple's hardware seeding list.



    I'm more likely to believe Nick DePlume, but being th legit operation TS is, their stuff is mostly software related so you're not likely to get big tip-offs from them either.



    Face it: Apple has a death grip on the information leak situation when it comes to hardware that is more than a couple weeks away.
  • Reply 15 of 141
    a random walka random walk Posts: 37member
    Moki may not have "true" insider knowledge. He has admitted as much in that the information he posts is water cooler gossip. He's never pretended otherwise. So be it. This is a rumor board and last I checked gossip and rumor were synonyms.



    Can someone speculate on performance of the GPUL? For example, what will the SPEC scores be for the GPUL? Is 1200int and 1500fp to crazy?
  • Reply 16 of 141
    jaddiejaddie Posts: 110member
    [quote]Originally posted by Moogs:

    <strong>Moki doesn't know when the next revision of Power Macs is coming, and he doesn't know what the architecture looks like. I doubt very much a shareware company like Ambrosia is on Apple's hardware seeding list.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Dear Moogs &amp; Friends



    Please don&rsquo;t give Moki a hard time. That fellow is responsible for Snapz Pro! He&rsquo;s also responsible for some of the coolest games that have ever run on Mac OS and has a bitchin&rsquo; message board of his own.



    Sincerely,

    Jaddie
  • Reply 17 of 141
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stoo:

    <strong>



    Even if IBM announce GP-UL on 15/10 and it's fantastic, will they actually mention Apple if Apple are going to use it?



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No. IBM would let Apple make any announcement about using it, which would be normal business protocol. On October 15, IBM will give us details about the chip's operation and performance, so we will know whether it is fantastic. They might say when it will be in production, and give us an IBM part number too.
  • Reply 18 of 141
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    [quote] Dear Moogs & Friends



    Please don?t give Moki a hard time. That fellow is responsible for Snapz Pro! He?s also responsible for some of the coolest games that have ever run on Mac OS and has a bitchin? message board of his own.



    Sincerely,

    Jaddie



    <hr></blockquote>



    Ditto that!



    -tink



    [ 10-09-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 141
    admactaniumadmactanium Posts: 812member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Moore's Law is as you described, but in popular usage, it has more to do with pace/perception of relative developments. We expect to perceive chips not only as X times faster than chips of X months ago, but also to keep pace with competitors products -- the fastest developer ussually setting the benchmark. Review sites talk about product cycles, and even get antsy when then 'next generatioon' isn't out 'on-time', they talk about missed 'roll-outs' even when companies haven't specifically announced any such roll-out. Apple stalled, badly, and even though they're back on the pace, they always seem to be moving at half speed. I think it's appropriate considering Moore's Law isn't even a law really.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    yeah, but the problem is that moore law talks about the advance of processor technology on a global scale. in other words, it only predicts the leader of the field. i don't think it would ever state that EVERY chip would double in density in 18 months.



    moore's law is being upheld, regardless of whether or not moto can produce faster chips. motorola could sit at 1.25 Ghz for eternity, as long as SOMEONE is sustaining moore law, it's still valid. i'm sure there are chips out there that are not getting any faster or denser over time. they don't BREAK moore's law. they simply ignore it. like motorola.
  • Reply 20 of 141
    crazyhorsecrazyhorse Posts: 9member
    [quote]Originally posted by A Random Walk:

    <strong> ....

    Can someone speculate on performance of the GPUL? For example, what will the SPEC scores be for the GPUL? Is 1200int and 1500fp to crazy?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't know about specific SPEC scores, but here's what Peter Glaskowsky, editor-in-chief of the Microprocessor Report said in an<a href="http://www.eet.com/semi/news/OEG20021009S0020"; target="_blank">EE Times Article</a>:



    "Apple would have to be crazy not to use this part," said Glaskowsky. "Its performance will be in the upper reaches of any CPU. I can't comment on its speeds, but they are good numbers. Apple would be able to produce for the first time machines that not only have great performance but support full 64-bit addressing."



    Also, the story seems to confirm that that the chips will be single-core.
Sign In or Register to comment.