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 970
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

In the same time that the 970 made it from 2.0GHz to 2.5GHz, the P4 made it from what - 3.2GHz to 3.7GHz? AMD is mentioning the clock speed in the fine print for quite a while.

The days of MHz counting are over. CPU battles are fought on bandwidth, multicore or power consumption. Workstation and Server CPUs (POWER, MIPS, Itanium or SPARC) have done this for quite a while, now it's the consumer grade hardware that's following.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Member since:

"The days of MHz counting are over. CPU battles are fought on bandwidth, multicore or power consumption"
Well, I hope we are not at the dead end for what concerns clock speeds and that we will continue to count MHz and GHz...
Don't forget that MHz is not a mith, computational efficience is the amount of calculations possible at each cycle and more MHz means more cycle so are the straightest way to more computing power.
A way with may tradeoffs, i.e. power consumption and noise in dissipating the thermal output, but MHz demistification doesn't mean at all that MHz aren't useful, increase the MHz and you will increase computing power for any cpu intensive task, while increasing power by increasing parallelism is nearly useless for the plethora of application that are mathematically not parallelizable, increasing bandwith will be useful only for memory hungry applications and useless for cpu intensive tasks, increasing cache is useful only if the task must keep a fast access to limited amount of data that will fit into the cache but tush useless for cpu intensive tasks.
A powerful system is a system with as few bottlenecks as possible, recent tendences are about "fixing" those bottlenecks (dual core to not have the system stalling if some task goes crazy, bigger cache to limit access to ram, faster and twin rams and faster fsb to limit performance loss for cache misses etc... disk... don't even talk about it, disks ARE the bottleneck of today's computing) but don't forget that everything you will do will be faster if you do it at a faster clock (of the system, not only of the cpu clock)!

Reply Parent Score: 0