TS: The 970MP is coming
Antares is coming!!
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antares.html
Known officially as the PowerPC 970MP, the chip will feature two interconnected microprocessors on a single 13.225mm x 11.629mm die -- a first for the 970 processor family. Each core will have its own 1MB L2 cache, sources said; the 970FX has only 512KB. L3 cache will not be supported.
Read article for more info.
Sounds great. Apple could have DC systems ready after MWSF 2005. It would be nice to beat AMD and Intel to the punch.
This opens the door for easy Quad CPU computing. Thing about how fast Tiger would multitask on a Quad system.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antares.html
Known officially as the PowerPC 970MP, the chip will feature two interconnected microprocessors on a single 13.225mm x 11.629mm die -- a first for the 970 processor family. Each core will have its own 1MB L2 cache, sources said; the 970FX has only 512KB. L3 cache will not be supported.
Read article for more info.
Sounds great. Apple could have DC systems ready after MWSF 2005. It would be nice to beat AMD and Intel to the punch.
This opens the door for easy Quad CPU computing. Thing about how fast Tiger would multitask on a Quad system.
Comments
The 3GHz clockspeed is a little bit disappointing. I'd have expected higher. Also, where's the integrated memory controller? The Opteron is arguably killing the G5 right now because of this.
This means 4-way PowerMacs.
Originally posted by Existence
The 3GHz clockspeed is a little bit disappointing. I'd have expected higher.
Well, being that it is a 970 class processor and they're still struggling to get the 2.5GHz's out, I think 3GHz would be on the mark for initial launch. Each core with 1MB of L2 cache instead of 512K, yeah baby!
Would this in theroy run twice as hot as a 970FX? Did Apple know this was coming and use the 2.5GHz as a test run for the liquid cooling (or ac unit) this thing will most likely need?
This is Apple though, so the first PowerMac's out of the gate with this will have a single chip, but still be billed as a "dual processor" system...
Here's to hoping that IBM can beat Intel and AMD to the punch.
IBM's plans call for delivering a 970MP that clocks at 3GHz with a 1GHz EI bus, according to sources. When comparing two chips of similar clock speeds, however, multiple-core processors deliver improved performance. IBM's initial plans called for multiple cores in the first G5, the 64-bit PowerPC 970, aka GigaProcessor UltraLite (GPUL).
Ummmmm I don't think we need to be moving to slower busses if we're sharing the core. Unless there is something different about this bus. Could it be a Hypertransport bus that doesn't double pump?
The Powertune functions will be really nice with the Xserve which won't have the luxury of liquid cooling.
This is interesting as well. from AN
CMOS SOI10KE technology with SOI (Silicon On Insulator) and copper bus with 10 layers of metal
64-bit implementation of the PowerPC AS Architecture Specification (Version 2.0)
Binary compatibility for all PowerPC AS application level code (problem state)
Binary compatibility for all PowerPC application level code (problem state)
Support for 32-bit O/S bridge facility
Vector/SIMD unit
Layered implementation strategy for very high frequency operation
Deeply pipelined design
- 16 stages for most fixed-point register-register operations
- 18 stages for most load and store operations (assuming L1 Dcache hit)
- 21 stages for most floating point operations
- 19, 22, and 25 stages for fixed-point, complex-fixed, and floating point operations, respectively in the VALU.
- 19 stages for VMX permute operations
my emphasis added
I believe the current 970 has 15 pipes for everything so looks like these are some significant changes that should allow the processor to hit 3Ghz easier. Once they drop in SMT utilization of some of those pipes should improve as well.
This info has really changed things up. It's looking like the POWER5 derivative might now come until the end of 2005 now. Which is fine really as long as we get some good improvements with next years refresh.
AN
Dynamic instruction cracking for some instructions allows for simpler inner core dataflow
Dedicated dataflow for cracking one instruction into two internal operations
Microcoded templates for longer emulation sequences
Speculative superscalar inner core organization
Aggressive branch prediction
- Prediction for up to two branches per cycle
- Support for up to 16 predicted branches in flight
- Prediction support for branch direction and branch addresses
Unless each core is clocked at 3GHz, then this one chip would do it.
Originally posted by mugwump
Well, it must be quads because the current offerings are 2.5 GHz x2 = 5 GHz. Obviously not exactly the 2x speed increase, but how could Apple go from dual 2.5's to a single (dual core) 3 GHz?
Unless each core is clocked at 3GHz, then this one chip would do it.
Well think of the cost savings. Apple doesn't need two CPU sockets on the motherboard. They only need on FSB connection. From a cost standpoint dual core looks like a potential winner. We may see dual core systems only using one socket for the Powermacs for all of 2005. 2006 may bring is the POWER5 derivative with ondie memory controllers, SMT and plenty of other goodies running at 65nm.
How fast will the G5 be if the each core was 3 Ghz and the G5 was a dual. That would wipe intel away.
VERY fast. Since each CPU is on the same die I'd expect the chip to chip communiction to be very fast.
Originally posted by quagmire
How fast will the G5 be if the each core was 3 Ghz and the G5 was a dual. That would wipe intel away.
I wouldn't count on it. It's AMD that is kicking ass right now anyway and they already have an integrated memory controller and 1MB L2 cache on a 130nm chips. They also have plans, like Intel and IBM, for dual-core chips.
By the time dual-core G5s are out, both intel and AMD will also have dual-core chips. No, IBM will simply achieve parity.
This is good news because IBM is able to keep up, unlike Motorola.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Ummmmm I don't think we need to be moving to slower busses if we're sharing the core. Unless there is something different about this bus. Could it be a Hypertransport bus that doesn't double pump?
From the same article:
The 970MP will feature a copper bus with 10 layers of metal; the dual cores will share a single Elastic Interface (EI) bus supporting a wide range of bus ratios and opening the door for higher bus speeds.
So it sounds almost to conflict with the later 1GHz bus speed. If this "opens the door" to higher bus speeds, how is 1GHz bus faster than 1.25GHz bus?
Originally posted by mugwump
...Unless each core is clocked at 3GHz, then this one chip would do it.
As I understand it both cores are a cully functional 970 brindged on die, so the stated clock speed would mean that both cores are operating at the full 3 Ghz. I could see Apple moving down to a single processor line again once they have dual core chips, though I would prefer to see Apple and IBM come out with a "portable" low power dual core chip for laptops and consumer computers and a high end dual core chip for the pro lines and IBM servers. That way Apple's entire lineup would be composed of MP systems, giving developers no reason not to fully support MP systems in their software.
By the time dual-core G5s are out, both intel and AMD will also have dual-core chips. No, IBM will simply achieve parity.
That depends. Read the article for all intents and purposes the 970MP is taped out and going through additional testing. If Apple launches 970MP systems in Feb then AMD is the only one of the Fab 3 that will be close. Intel isn't aiming at DC CPU until the end of 2005
So it sounds almost to conflict with the later 1GHz bus speed. If this "opens the door" to higher bus speeds, how is 1GHz bus faster than 1.25GHz bus?
Yes I know. That makes no sense unless we get more specifics on this bus. Could the 1Ghz bus be bidirectional or 64bit yielding the equivalent of a 2Ghz FSB? I guess we'll know more soon enough.
Originally posted by Existence
I wouldn't count on it. It's AMD that is kicking ass right now anyway and they already have an integrated memory controller and 1MB L2 cache on a 130nm chips. They also have plans, like Intel and IBM, for dual-core chips.
By the time dual-core G5s are out, both intel and AMD will also have dual-core chips. No, IBM will simply achieve parity.
This is good news because IBM is able to keep up, unlike Motorola.
I have to agree, remember though we are still waiting for the 2.5 to show itself and moto is still goofing around at 1.5 mhz
Originally posted by Aurora
I have to agree, remember though we are still waiting for the 2.5 to show itself and moto is still goofing around at 1.5 mhz
Keep in mind Apple's profits were DOUBLE AMDS profits for Q3. AMD is kickin' ass but they aren't profiting from it. The reason why is the huge die sizes of the Opteron. While they are great chips you don't make money unless you can yield . So Apple's getting twice the profit at least from every Powermac sold versus the competing Opteron Workstation.
Spring 2005
970MP 3.0Ghz $2999
970MP 2.6Ghz $2499
970MP 2.2Ghz $1999
Summer 2005
970MP 3.2Ghz $2999
970MP 2.8Ghz $2499
970MP 2.4Ghz $1999
Spring 2006
980MP 3.4Ghz $2999
980MP 3.0Ghz $2499
980MP 2.6Ghz $1999
980= 65nm ondie memory controller, SSOI, SMT and other geeky stuff.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Spring 2005
970MP 3.0Ghz $2999
970MP 2.6Ghz $2499
970MP 2.2Ghz $1999
Summer 2005
970MP 3.2Ghz $2999
970MP 2.8Ghz $2499
970MP 2.4Ghz $1999
Spring 2006
980MP 3.4Ghz $2999
980MP 3.0Ghz $2499
980MP 2.6Ghz $1999
I would say that your price point at the low end is high. Apple needs should have a low end pro computer back down in the $1499 to $1599 price range. This is a serious oversight that was held in check by the "Dual Boot" G4 towers for the past year, but has no replacement now that those computers are sorely out of date and out of production. The Mid level should be just over $2000 and tope end about where you have it priced. I think that there is room for an Uber PM beyond the $3000 price range with Quad processors.
Apple stated at or around the "anouncement" of the recession that they were not going to cut prices to get through the recession, but inovate their way through it. Well, we are through it and it is time to address the low to mid level comptuer users who have left the Mac platform or who have never considered it. Apple can not afford to loose too much more market share,and that is what they are going to do if they continue to push prices up while the rest of the industry is decreasing prices or holding them steady.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I see the top end iMac going Dual Processor eventually to satiate the needs of that important $1499-1999 slot.
In the Pro market that traditionally has allied itself with Apple, graphic design and production, a $1499 17" iMac is unusable for a low end computer. This is especially true given the plethora of pallets in InDesign which is gaining ground on Quark. It is hard to do production work on a 20" CRT with all that extra screen real estate bieng used up, let alone a 17" monitor. The extra $500 per unit adds up quickly in these markets which are bieng pressured to compete with production houses in India and China, so it wouldn't suprise me if more of them start looking more seriously at Wintel computer's for their production work to cut costs so that they can better compete in what is becoming a world market. Apple needs to address these customers who are used to paying $1499-$1699 for their production computers and reusing their existing 20" CRT's. The only option right now is a discontinued model that is effectively 2 years old. If not, and their lower end customer's defect to Wintell hardware, it won't be to long before their higher end graphic pro's are forced to do the same.
If they plan on trying to market the PowerMac as a workstation equal to the competition there is no way they let this happen again. Nobody will ever take them seriously ever again after entering the workstation class market, and then backing off on performance vs. the competition. That would just be silly. I would switch and never bother looking back if Apple did something that stupid.