What does a 64 bit chip mean for the OS and applications and for the product line-up? (I have no idea, but here are my questions)
1. Do we need a 64 bit aware OSX?
1a. What will run faster on it, what won't be affected?
1b. How long will it take to optimize OS X for 64 bits?
2. Do applications need to be 64 bit aware?
2a&b. same as above.
3. Is there anything dazzlingly new that we'll be able to do because of the new architecture? I'm thinking breakthroughs like GUI, image editing, movie editing, etc, have been in the past for Apple. Is there a new application that will be enabled by these.
4. Does it make sense for Apple to have the professional products as dual chip 970s and consumer products a single chip 970s or are we going to wait 4 years to get a 970 equipped iMac?
In other words, one of these 1.8 GHz chips uses twice as much power as one 1 GHz 7455. I was hoping for more impressive power requirements, but eh, this a pretty fair trade-off if the performance is there. Not much better than Intel's P4 family though...
In other words, one of these 1.8 GHz chips uses twice as much power as one 1 GHz 7455. I was hoping for more impressive power requirements, but eh, this a pretty fair trade-off if the performance is there. Not much better than Intel's P4 family though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to the charts on geek.com. The P4 2.8GHz sucks down 68.4 watts. The 7455 at 1GHz sucks down 30. Doesn't seem so bad, perfectly acceptable for towers.
"At 1.8 GHz, the CPU runs at 1.3 volts, and uses 42 watts. At 1.1 volts, it uses only 19 watts, and runs at 1.2 GHz"
How many watts is ok for a laptop? How many watts is the current powerbook G4 800?
Also this is 19 watts at 1.2 ghz on a .13 manufacting process...it should move pretty quickly to .09 so how much should .09 decrease power requirements and/or increase clock?
I think, Eugene, that it convincingly dusts a Pentium 4, especially in fpu, and its just, estimated behind an Itanic 2 on fpu. Impressive.
Not bad for a 'stripped down' processor.
And the Xeons and Itanics cost way more.
The 970 is cited for desktop use. And it's 64 bit and it's got altivec 'vmx'. As a Lightwave user...I'm about to break out the champers...
Moki has ruled out a Moto 'G5'. S'funny in one of the articles I read that a Motorola 'G5' rippost hasn't been ruled out and further that said part will be developed further. I don't see it though. I agree with many on this board.
...just see a Moto G4 die shrink on better memory structure this Jan'.
Yet...very strange those old Register links...was there a 8500 desktop that was canned? Did Moto/Apple decide to go with a G4 chip on better bandwidth because it was cheaper or because they'd already made the decision to go with IBM? Or maybe the links were pure fluff stories ala MOSR?
At least the 970 is real.
It remains to see what Apple says if quizzed during their conference call...
<strong>I think, Eugene, that it convincingly dusts a Pentium 4, especially in fpu, and its just, estimated behind an Itanic 2 on fpu. Impressive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmm... i hoped for 1300 spec .... i think intel will be on 1100 in the usual win-pc next year. so if a 1.8gig 970 is in this range too that's nothing to get really exciting about isn't it? it's just to be as fast as the wintels....
but one thing is for sure: i prefere my 400mhz g4 over a 2.8ghz pentium 'cause it runs os x ;-)
Something I'd be interested to know is how conservative an early pace IBM has decided to set. I am inclined to think the chip will probably scale very well and be easily overclockable.
This is a hot little chip. Low voltage (the 7455 in the towers run at 1.8v), relatively compact, exceptionally low wattage for its class of processor, VMX, great spec numbers, and lots of bandwidth to the motherboard (one of the many things SPEC ignores) and to other CPUs.
It'll be moving to .09 micron relatively quickly, too, which means that if Apple can't get it in a PowerBook (or an iMac!) right off the bat they'll be able to before long.
In the meantime, Mot's offerings should scale up well, especially if they're moving an (evolved) G4 to RapidIO and the 0.09 micron fab they've bought into.
Comments
<strong>Target sample date 2Q03
Target ship date 2H03</strong><hr></blockquote>So we're looking at by MWSF 2004 for sure, MWNY 2003 at the earliest.
Shouldn't the talk be over by now? Let's get that info rollin' in!
<strong>There's a separate VPU for Altivec/VMX is very good news...more to come</strong><hr></blockquote>
how about just give the link:
<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=347094333 5&p=9" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=347094333 5&p=9</a>
<a href="http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=forum&roomID=11"; target="_blank">RealWorldTechnologies Forum</a>
[ 10-15-2002: Message edited by: sc_markt ]</p>
Next year's PPC 970 @ 1.8 GHz:
Est. SPEC INT 937
Est. SPEC FP 1051
Today's p4 @ 2.53:
SPEC INT 893
SPEC FP 878
I2 @ 1GHz:
SPEC INT: 807
SPEC FP: 1356
1. Do we need a 64 bit aware OSX?
1a. What will run faster on it, what won't be affected?
1b. How long will it take to optimize OS X for 64 bits?
2. Do applications need to be 64 bit aware?
2a&b. same as above.
3. Is there anything dazzlingly new that we'll be able to do because of the new architecture? I'm thinking breakthroughs like GUI, image editing, movie editing, etc, have been in the past for Apple. Is there a new application that will be enabled by these.
4. Does it make sense for Apple to have the professional products as dual chip 970s and consumer products a single chip 970s or are we going to wait 4 years to get a 970 equipped iMac?
Discuss.
GP-UL Est. SPEC INT 937 @ 1.8 GHz
GP-UL Est. SPEC FP 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
from: the presentation at the MPF
Intel P4 SPEC INT 833 @ 2.4GHz
Intel P4 SPEC FP 812 @ 2.4GHz
Intel P4 Xeon SPEC INT 921 @ 2.8GHz
Intel P4 Xeon SPEC FP 878 @ 2.8GHz
from: <a href="http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/"; target="_blank">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2002q3/</a>;
[ 10-15-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
<strong>Power 42W @ 1.8 GHz 1.3V (low power mode @ 1.1 V)</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words, one of these 1.8 GHz chips uses twice as much power as one 1 GHz 7455. I was hoping for more impressive power requirements, but eh, this a pretty fair trade-off if the performance is there. Not much better than Intel's P4 family though...
<strong>
In other words, one of these 1.8 GHz chips uses twice as much power as one 1 GHz 7455. I was hoping for more impressive power requirements, but eh, this a pretty fair trade-off if the performance is there. Not much better than Intel's P4 family though...</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to the charts on geek.com. The P4 2.8GHz sucks down 68.4 watts. The 7455 at 1GHz sucks down 30. Doesn't seem so bad, perfectly acceptable for towers.
Now, when can I buy one?
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4225"; target="_blank">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4225</a>;
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22328.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22328.html</a>;
<strong>yes but i wonder what a 1.4GHz 1.1v chip dissipates.</strong><hr></blockquote>
19 Watts at 1.2 GHz 1.1v. According to the translation of C't article in the Ars forums.
How many watts is ok for a laptop? How many watts is the current powerbook G4 800?
Also this is 19 watts at 1.2 ghz on a .13 manufacting process...it should move pretty quickly to .09 so how much should .09 decrease power requirements and/or increase clock?
Not bad for a 'stripped down' processor.
And the Xeons and Itanics cost way more.
The 970 is cited for desktop use. And it's 64 bit and it's got altivec 'vmx'. As a Lightwave user...I'm about to break out the champers...
Moki has ruled out a Moto 'G5'. S'funny in one of the articles I read that a Motorola 'G5' rippost hasn't been ruled out and further that said part will be developed further. I don't see it though. I agree with many on this board.
...just see a Moto G4 die shrink on better memory structure this Jan'.
Yet...very strange those old Register links...was there a 8500 desktop that was canned? Did Moto/Apple decide to go with a G4 chip on better bandwidth because it was cheaper or because they'd already made the decision to go with IBM? Or maybe the links were pure fluff stories ala MOSR?
At least the 970 is real.
It remains to see what Apple says if quizzed during their conference call...
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 10-15-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>I think, Eugene, that it convincingly dusts a Pentium 4, especially in fpu, and its just, estimated behind an Itanic 2 on fpu. Impressive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmm... i hoped for 1300 spec .... i think intel will be on 1100 in the usual win-pc next year. so if a 1.8gig 970 is in this range too that's nothing to get really exciting about isn't it? it's just to be as fast as the wintels....
but one thing is for sure: i prefere my 400mhz g4 over a 2.8ghz pentium 'cause it runs os x ;-)
It'll be moving to .09 micron relatively quickly, too, which means that if Apple can't get it in a PowerBook (or an iMac!) right off the bat they'll be able to before long.
In the meantime, Mot's offerings should scale up well, especially if they're moving an (evolved) G4 to RapidIO and the 0.09 micron fab they've bought into.