Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Jul 2005 19:16 UTC
IBM IBM has today presented various new versions of their G5 processor at the Power Everywhere Forum in Japan. Firstly, it introduced the much-anticipated PowerPC 970MP, the dual-core version of the G5. In addition, they also announced 3 low-power G5s, ranging from 1.2Ghz at 13W to 1.6Ghz at 16W. These processors will most likely find their way into Apple's Macs.
Thread beginning with comment 1074
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Too little, too late
by rayiner on Thu 7th Jul 2005 21:37 UTC in reply to "Too little, too late"
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's too little, too late... Yonah will blow away anything IBM has to offer, it seems to be a really well designed chip.

I see the Mac folks have overcome their cognitive dissonance in record time! Tell me, what are your thoughts on the G3 versus the Pentium II? Were you one of the Mac folks who though that the G3 was better? As I recall, most Mac folks didn't think much of Yonah's architecture back when it was called the PII.

I'm being a bit sarcastic, of course, Yonah isn't exactly like the PII, but it's safe to say that the evolutionary jump any bigger than the one from the Athlon (K7) to the Athlon64 (K8). Mac folks cracked jokes about the aging x86 architecture with regards to the PII, and are now hailing Yonah as the second coming, and it's irking me off a little.

In any case, the multicore G5 looks like a nice chip. It seems about time we saw one, given the G5's small die size. The 970MP should weigh in at about 170M transistors, making it closer in size to a single-core prescott than a dual-core prescott. Additionally, it's very likely that the 2.5GHz multicore chips coming out now will be faster than the first iteration of dual-core Yonahs that'll be coming out next year. Those will debut at 2.13GHz, and Yonah's IPC isn't good enough to overcome that difference in most cases.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by on Thu 7th Jul 2005 21:57 in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
Member since:

"I'm being a bit sarcastic, of course, Yonah isn't exactly like the PII, but it's safe to say that the evolutionary jump any bigger than the one from the Athlon (K7) to the Athlon64 (K8). Mac folks cracked jokes about the aging x86 architecture with regards to the PII, and are now hailing Yonah as the second coming, and it's irking me off a little."

1st: I don't even own a Mac, I never had one for more than a decade.

2nd: Pentium M's are based on Pentium III's architecture, yes. They have numerous enhancements also like a beefier Brach Predictor, really good power management, among other things I really don't feel like explaining here. If you read some recent articles comparing a recent Pentium M running with an adapter on a Desktop motherboard (not a very recent one) you'll see that these mobile chips hold very well against even the best Athlon 64.

3rd: the Yonah processor will not only be a dual-core version of the Pentium M. It will have many important enhancements to it, including SSE3, better power management and power consumption. It will also feature an enhanced floating point engine and a beefed up instruction decoder that can handle "several" SSE instructions in parallel.

4th: It's dual core and both cores share 2MB of L2 cache which doesn't happen with current dual-core processors out in the market. This feature can be a very high performance bonus since the two processors can communicate with each other faster and easier.

Read about Yonah, I suggest. www.arstechnica.com is a good start.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Thu 7th Jul 2005 22:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

Oh, and BTW: Yonah is being designed since the Pentium M was released! I really encourage everybody to read stuff about the Pentium M and Yonah to understand that this is going to be a really great mobile (desktop too) chip!

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by JLF65 on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

If you read some recent articles comparing a recent Pentium M running with an adapter on a Desktop motherboard (not a very recent one) you'll see that these mobile chips hold very well against even the best Athlon 64.

You obviously just skimmed the articles. The Pentium M, when overclocked by at least 50%, can "hold very well" against a MID-LEVEL Athlon 64 in the demo benchmarks of three games. In all other tests, the Pentium M has its butt handed to it by all other processors, including low-end Athlon XPs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by on Thu 7th Jul 2005 22:30 in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
Member since:

"Additionally, it's very likely that the 2.5GHz multicore chips coming out now will be faster than the first iteration of dual-core Yonahs that'll be coming out next year. Those will debut at 2.13GHz, and Yonah's IPC isn't good enough to overcome that difference in most cases."

The 2.5Ghz multicore will be 'probably' faster than the Yonah's incorporated in the first Mactel Laptops, mac Mini and iMacs. Howhever, you are comparing high-end liquid cooled CPU with a mobile chip, and that is where the Macs are currently lacking most in terms of CPU performance.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by ma_d on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:13 in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I believe Yonah is a Pentium III derivative, which is a Pentium II derivative, which is a Pentium Pro (notice I didn't say derivative).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by rayiner on Fri 8th Jul 2005 03:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

There is almost no difference between a PIII and a PII aside from the on-die cache (which some P2s had IIRC) and SSE. SSE is so bolt-on in the P6 architecture that its hardly worth considering as a new generation of chip.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by ma_d on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:16 in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Never understimate a Macintosh apologists ability to repeat Steve Job's verbatem.

I'm not trying to be rude or insulting; but it does start to seem like that sometimes. This is one of those times where Mac fans cried for so long about how G5 was better than Xeon (we all know anything beats Prescott) and Opteron and now that Apple is leaving it suddenly Intel is going to produce an amazing x86 chip for them? Do you guys just trust Steve Jobs implicitly?
If I had been a big Mac fan (and I was a big fan of the G5 and the G4 actually) when this happened I'd have shut-up about processor superiority and started talking about hardware quality and OS superiority.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

Don't own a Mac, never have! Never said G5 was better than Opteron! It is better than Xeon though..

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Fri 8th Jul 2005 02:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

The G5 in a Power Mac has got nothing to apologize for.

A G5 in a laptop was the problem. And IBM's time to market wasn't as good as one would hope. Had IBM started with the G4 and built it's 64bit replacement, then there might not have been this change to Intel.

I guess there are just so many good ideas when it comes to chip design.
But, it would have been interesting to see what IBM could have done had they started with the G4, added 64bit regs, and only increased the 7 stage pipeline to 10+, dual core, better Altivec...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by on Fri 8th Jul 2005 10:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Member since:

All this brow beating about "how dare mac zealots sing the praises of intel when they bagged them for so many years" is starting to get me annoyed.

Each porduct should be judged on its own merits. I am an unashamed G4 fanboy, but in the last 12 months I have been getting increasingly jealous of my centrino toting friends. The P4 is a pilo 'o crap, but the Pentium M is really sweet.

Some intel chips are good, some are bad, some PPC chips are good, some are bad. It seems to me apple is just betting that future intel chips will be the better. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before we can make any judgement as to wether or not this was a good idea.

Reply Parent Score: 0