I'll believe it when I have a dual-core PowerBook sitting on my lap without causing skin to turn black and flake off...and not a second sooner.
It makes for a funny quote, but sublime ignorance of Moto/Freescales traditional market space is no excuse. The chip will go into routers and switches and whatever other markets may find a use for it (i.e. maybe Apple).
IBM has no chip for laptops right now. Quoting typical power consumption rather than max power means IBM needs to game their specs because power is their biggest issue.
AMD is quoting 2H2005 for dual cores. Freescale should be in that ballpark ship as well.
^^^AMD is already shipping .09nm parts. If they are using the Black diamond process then AMD has it working.
From the article:
However, 'revenue shipments' doesn't necessarily mean 'volume shipments', and it's telling that the part has not yet been added to AMD's official price list, and the chipmaker has not said what performance rating it will give the chip.
...and...
But other CPU makers have had problems with their 90nm processes, and AMD has still to prove that it is different.
You make it sound like they're cranking them out the door. It sounds to me like they're just pushing out a few measly ones like IBM is.
IBMs problems are heat and yields. The problem is likely fixed but now that they are months behind in yielding that doesn't help Apple ship iMac G5s today but people are making far too much of an issue of 90nm than they should. IBM should be fine by Q1 2005. Parallel development should be going on right regarding 65nm. As Amorph stated above there are ways to fab at 90nm that are more sophisticated than what we're getting today. The use of strained silicon, low-k dialectics and other tech(eFuse) will play a difference in fabbing future projects. .
That's all nice speculation, but like the other poster said about these dual-core things, I'll believe it when I stop hearing about huge delays in ANY G5 machine, let alone the high-end G5s that use the 90nm chips. MacIntouch has several posts of people with huge problems with shipments coming with bad chips and such. IBM might be saying they've got the problem under control, but that doesn't help Apple at all if they don't get any chips. And it doesn't bode well that IBM has the problem fixed.
Oh, and to say that 65nm is in parallel process and on schedule is unrealistic, esp. since everything was on schedule and looking prosperous for the 90nm, 3GHz was in sight, new G5s were going to be announced in January, and then February, March, April, May, and finally June, which announced the 2.5GHz for end July, which turned into August. with many people still waiting for their orders (And this isn't just an IBM problem, because Intel's had production issues at 90nm).
There's absolutely no reason to believe there won't be unforseen problems going to .65nm.
I think you have failed to see the bigger picture here. AMD has partnered with Freescale, so they both should be at about the same level of development. Even if Motorola doesn't have a dual core chip available they most certainly have been working on an uprated G4. In other words the device with the described memory controller and other peripherials.
A 90nm LOW POWER SoC for the portable market would be a huge for Apple. It could very well lead to Apple recovering the run time crown over the Dothan series.
Sure there is still the issue of Freescale actually delivering the tech, but niether AMD nor Freescale are big on trumpeting new technology the way Intel does. Since AMD is delivering this chip to the portable market all one has to do is keep an eye out for the next few weeks. WE should see soon if the product is real or not.
Apple is in a differrent situation. They desperately need a 64 bit laptop solution even if this 32 bit chip is a better laptop device. They may get this with a respin of the 970 into a more energy stingy 90nm process. Though I suspect that Apple may just chuck battery operation as a laptop feature and go with the current 970FX. This still leaves the iBook or similar machine, a machine Apple has a history of spending little effort on improving.
So I have to wonder if this chip, an apparrent fine exxample of a portable chip, will ever find a place in an Apple machine. Good as it is Apple knows the pro line needs to go 64 bit very soon so this isn't a good alternative for the Powerbook. To make good use of the chip the iBook would need a redesign, which one has to wonder if Apple is ready for that. What we are hearing about this chip is fantastic but fitting it into Apples product line and meeting consumer demand is another thing altogether.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
You make it sound like they're cranking them out the door. It sounds to me like they're just pushing out a few measly ones like IBM is.
I'm pleasantly surprised that Moto is still trying to make improved PowerPC chips. I thought that they quit trying about two or three years ago!
I think a healthy competition between IBM and Motorola is going to be great for Apple. Not only for the obvious reason that with competition, it is much more likely for progress to happen more rapidly, but also for the position of strength one gets from not being dependent on a single vendor.
You can only hope that the techcrew at Austin and Crolles are on the job and not watching the olympics
Yep...bring on some dual core madness asap.
As for power usage, the MPC85xx doesn't have any figures readily available...for a chip thats 18 months old, there is a scary lack of evidence that it actually exists outside of blueprints.
I think the most pertinent part of this release is when will the new 7447A be released at the higher clock speed and how fast? The dual cores are slated for 2005, but will we get a 1.7-2GHz G4 with built in memory controller anytime soon?
The G4 roadmap is more believeable than the 85xx roadmap because it is an existing and proven core design. We may complain about it, but Apple has shipped a large number of machines with G4s in them. Doing a process shrink to 90nm (assuming a working 90nm process, which AMD is demonstrating) is not a huge issue. Putting two cores on the same chip isn't really a big deal, especially with the interconnect fabric that Motorola has developed for the 85xx series. Putting SoC features in next to the cores is also not a big deal. Basically this is a safe, conservative approach to the problem of how to deliver a significantly improved G4-class chip.
The result of a 90nm dual core G4 w/ on-chip memory controller, RIO bus, on-chip Ethernet should actually be a hell of a chip. The clock rate should be in the 1.8-2.0 GHz range and heat density not a problem, and overall power consumption reasonable for laptops. Performance-wise the on-chip memory controller will make a dramatic difference in G4 performance. Its integer benchmarks should best the G5's at the same clock rate, although it will still have less than half the floating point performance. Vector performance will likely be about equal, although for heavily computation the G4 has the better vector unit -- the off-chip memory controller on the G5 means Apple can back it up with a better memory system that the 2xG4 will support.
I hope Freescale can pull this off, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did despite their track record. Before then we'll get a hint of what is coming with the "improved" single core G4 -- that is probably just the 90nm shrink.
Iam amazed at all the excitement while this is the company that single handidly almost ran apple into the ground.
It's pretty simple, really: This isn't the company that single-handedly ran Apple into the ground. A shareholder revolt took out the management team responsible for Moto's decline, Moto is spinning off SPS — the division we're concerned with — as Freescale, and that appears to be in good hands, and they hired a new CEO, Ed Zander, who has a good rep and who's good friends with Steve, and he's already turned Moto around in the cell phone market, where they were floundering, and made the company profitable again.
Meanwhile, SPS' two main problems — which both stemmed from the same problem of inept top-level management — have been addressed: First, under Chris Galvin, the old CEO, senior engineers at Moto were underpaid and poorly treated, and they left. SPS has the opportunity, the funding and the leadership to change that. Second, under Galvin Moto didn't have the money to run clean fabs. That's one reason why it took them so long to produce anything at 130nm. Freescale has partnered with two veteran semiconductor companies, Philips Semiconductor and STMicro, to produce a nice, bright, modern, clean fab.
So, in pretty much every significant respect, this is a different company. They've taken careful and effective steps to pull themselves out of the hole they were in.
Quote:
again Moto's best at the moment is pathetic 1.5 how does that compare with Intel or Amd? not even in the same league.
Compare the G4 to the Pentium M, which is its real competitor, and remember to account for wattage, because that's an absolutely crucial parameter in this space. How does it look now?
The G4 is not designed or intended to go toe-to-toe with the P4 or the Athlon (although, at the outset, it did surprisingly well). That was the real problem with the G4 PowerMacs: Not that the G4 was terrible, but that it's not the sort of all-out performance chip that you want in a tower. Now that Apple has the 970 family, they can use the G4 where it's designed to be used. And if you doubt its effectiveness there, look at PowerBook, iBook and eMac sales.
Everyone here is painfully aware of your stance on this issue by now. Thanks.
You're welcome.
But...for those who still aren't aware of my stance on the issue, I'll be fishing this thread out in a year when everyone is typing on G5 processors or single-core G4 computers.
thank you, im amazed that anyone can think this chip didnt nearly kill off Apple. Fact is while everyone moved forward moto was and still is stagnate. This left Apple with nothing to compete with Intel & Amd. doesnt matter how it happened what matters is it did happen year after year of no progress. i disagree with Amorph, moto ineptness left Apple sitting there with no options except to take what moto was giving which was near nothing, they did it at 500 or should i say 450, they did at 1 gig and have done it again at 1.5 Apples only option was to find another chip builder yet Ibm is playing the moto theme for apple all over again. I hope moto can do something for Apple to make up for years of nothing.
Comments
Motorola developing dual-core PowerPC G4, MPC 7447A successor
Good morning AI
Can you imagine the balls it will take to place that first order with Freescale? That will be a risky commitment.
yeah i know its the reg but what are you going to do
I'll believe it when I have a dual-core PowerBook sitting on my lap without causing skin to turn black and flake off...and not a second sooner.
It makes for a funny quote, but sublime ignorance of Moto/Freescales traditional market space is no excuse. The chip will go into routers and switches and whatever other markets may find a use for it (i.e. maybe Apple).
IBM has no chip for laptops right now. Quoting typical power consumption rather than max power means IBM needs to game their specs because power is their biggest issue.
AMD is quoting 2H2005 for dual cores. Freescale should be in that ballpark ship as well.
Id like to see 2G 7447A's but that's optimistic, at least a 1.7-1.8G PB allows for the eMac/ibooks to be updated.
Who knows we just might see dual core G4 PB's at WWDC 05!, now that would be neat.
Powerbook G5 is on it's way. Look at the /System/Library/Extensions/ AppleMacRISC4PE.kext/Contents/Info.plist in 10.3.5
Powerbook G5 in Q1/ 2005
Originally posted by cowerd
^^^AMD is already shipping .09nm parts. If they are using the Black diamond process then AMD has it working.
From the article:
However, 'revenue shipments' doesn't necessarily mean 'volume shipments', and it's telling that the part has not yet been added to AMD's official price list, and the chipmaker has not said what performance rating it will give the chip.
...and...
But other CPU makers have had problems with their 90nm processes, and AMD has still to prove that it is different.
You make it sound like they're cranking them out the door. It sounds to me like they're just pushing out a few measly ones like IBM is.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Louzer,
IBMs problems are heat and yields. The problem is likely fixed but now that they are months behind in yielding that doesn't help Apple ship iMac G5s today but people are making far too much of an issue of 90nm than they should. IBM should be fine by Q1 2005. Parallel development should be going on right regarding 65nm. As Amorph stated above there are ways to fab at 90nm that are more sophisticated than what we're getting today. The use of strained silicon, low-k dialectics and other tech(eFuse) will play a difference in fabbing future projects. .
That's all nice speculation, but like the other poster said about these dual-core things, I'll believe it when I stop hearing about huge delays in ANY G5 machine, let alone the high-end G5s that use the 90nm chips. MacIntouch has several posts of people with huge problems with shipments coming with bad chips and such. IBM might be saying they've got the problem under control, but that doesn't help Apple at all if they don't get any chips. And it doesn't bode well that IBM has the problem fixed.
Oh, and to say that 65nm is in parallel process and on schedule is unrealistic, esp. since everything was on schedule and looking prosperous for the 90nm, 3GHz was in sight, new G5s were going to be announced in January, and then February, March, April, May, and finally June, which announced the 2.5GHz for end July, which turned into August. with many people still waiting for their orders (And this isn't just an IBM problem, because Intel's had production issues at 90nm).
There's absolutely no reason to believe there won't be unforseen problems going to .65nm.
A 90nm LOW POWER SoC for the portable market would be a huge for Apple. It could very well lead to Apple recovering the run time crown over the Dothan series.
Sure there is still the issue of Freescale actually delivering the tech, but niether AMD nor Freescale are big on trumpeting new technology the way Intel does. Since AMD is delivering this chip to the portable market all one has to do is keep an eye out for the next few weeks. WE should see soon if the product is real or not.
Apple is in a differrent situation. They desperately need a 64 bit laptop solution even if this 32 bit chip is a better laptop device. They may get this with a respin of the 970 into a more energy stingy 90nm process. Though I suspect that Apple may just chuck battery operation as a laptop feature and go with the current 970FX. This still leaves the iBook or similar machine, a machine Apple has a history of spending little effort on improving.
So I have to wonder if this chip, an apparrent fine exxample of a portable chip, will ever find a place in an Apple machine. Good as it is Apple knows the pro line needs to go 64 bit very soon so this isn't a good alternative for the Powerbook. To make good use of the chip the iBook would need a redesign, which one has to wonder if Apple is ready for that. What we are hearing about this chip is fantastic but fitting it into Apples product line and meeting consumer demand is another thing altogether.
Dave
Originally posted by Louzer
You make it sound like they're cranking them out the door. It sounds to me like they're just pushing out a few measly ones like IBM is.
Freescale uses RIO und IBM uses HT...
You get the idea
I think a healthy competition between IBM and Motorola is going to be great for Apple. Not only for the obvious reason that with competition, it is much more likely for progress to happen more rapidly, but also for the position of strength one gets from not being dependent on a single vendor.
Stay tuned!
Yep...bring on some dual core madness asap.
As for power usage, the MPC85xx doesn't have any figures readily available...for a chip thats 18 months old, there is a scary lack of evidence that it actually exists outside of blueprints.
Sound eerily familiar?
The result of a 90nm dual core G4 w/ on-chip memory controller, RIO bus, on-chip Ethernet should actually be a hell of a chip. The clock rate should be in the 1.8-2.0 GHz range and heat density not a problem, and overall power consumption reasonable for laptops. Performance-wise the on-chip memory controller will make a dramatic difference in G4 performance. Its integer benchmarks should best the G5's at the same clock rate, although it will still have less than half the floating point performance. Vector performance will likely be about equal, although for heavily computation the G4 has the better vector unit -- the off-chip memory controller on the G5 means Apple can back it up with a better memory system that the 2xG4 will support.
I hope Freescale can pull this off, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did despite their track record. Before then we'll get a hint of what is coming with the "improved" single core G4 -- that is probably just the 90nm shrink.
Originally posted by Aurora
Iam amazed at all the excitement while this is the company that single handidly almost ran apple into the ground.
It's pretty simple, really: This isn't the company that single-handedly ran Apple into the ground. A shareholder revolt took out the management team responsible for Moto's decline, Moto is spinning off SPS — the division we're concerned with — as Freescale, and that appears to be in good hands, and they hired a new CEO, Ed Zander, who has a good rep and who's good friends with Steve, and he's already turned Moto around in the cell phone market, where they were floundering, and made the company profitable again.
Meanwhile, SPS' two main problems — which both stemmed from the same problem of inept top-level management — have been addressed: First, under Chris Galvin, the old CEO, senior engineers at Moto were underpaid and poorly treated, and they left. SPS has the opportunity, the funding and the leadership to change that. Second, under Galvin Moto didn't have the money to run clean fabs. That's one reason why it took them so long to produce anything at 130nm. Freescale has partnered with two veteran semiconductor companies, Philips Semiconductor and STMicro, to produce a nice, bright, modern, clean fab.
So, in pretty much every significant respect, this is a different company. They've taken careful and effective steps to pull themselves out of the hole they were in.
again Moto's best at the moment is pathetic 1.5 how does that compare with Intel or Amd? not even in the same league.
Compare the G4 to the Pentium M, which is its real competitor, and remember to account for wattage, because that's an absolutely crucial parameter in this space. How does it look now?
The G4 is not designed or intended to go toe-to-toe with the P4 or the Athlon (although, at the outset, it did surprisingly well). That was the real problem with the G4 PowerMacs: Not that the G4 was terrible, but that it's not the sort of all-out performance chip that you want in a tower. Now that Apple has the 970 family, they can use the G4 where it's designed to be used. And if you doubt its effectiveness there, look at PowerBook, iBook and eMac sales.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Unbelievable.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I hope you can all stand disappointment.
Everyone here is painfully aware of your stance on this issue by now. Thanks.
Originally posted by Gavriel
Everyone here is painfully aware of your stance on this issue by now. Thanks.
You're welcome.
But...for those who still aren't aware of my stance on the issue, I'll be fishing this thread out in a year when everyone is typing on G5 processors or single-core G4 computers.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I hope you can all stand disappointment.
thank you, im amazed that anyone can think this chip didnt nearly kill off Apple. Fact is while everyone moved forward moto was and still is stagnate. This left Apple with nothing to compete with Intel & Amd. doesnt matter how it happened what matters is it did happen year after year of no progress. i disagree with Amorph, moto ineptness left Apple sitting there with no options except to take what moto was giving which was near nothing, they did it at 500 or should i say 450, they did at 1 gig and have done it again at 1.5 Apples only option was to find another chip builder yet Ibm is playing the moto theme for apple all over again. I hope moto can do something for Apple to make up for years of nothing.