IBM on PowerPC 970MP Power Savings
ZDNet and eWeek report on a presentation by Norman Rohrer, and IBM engineer at the Fall Processor Forum in San Jose.
Roher discussed the IBM PowerPC 970MP which is being used by Apple in the latest round of PowerMac revisions. IBM describes the new chip as a "low-power, high-performance" processor.
The 970MP houses two processor cores each with its own CPU, AltiVEC unit and 1MB of cache. The previous PowerPC 970 (G5) processor only had a single core. In addition, the new 970MP can shut down one of the two cores and further reduce power consumption by reducing its frequency. Peak consumption is described as 100W which can be reduced to 40W.
Even with such power savings modes, it seems unlikely that the 970MP will approach the anticipiated plans from Intel to produce lower power consumption chips. Intel's future Performance per Watt roadmaps were cited as reasons for Apple's switch to Intel which is planned to begin in 2006.
Roher discussed the IBM PowerPC 970MP which is being used by Apple in the latest round of PowerMac revisions. IBM describes the new chip as a "low-power, high-performance" processor.
The 970MP houses two processor cores each with its own CPU, AltiVEC unit and 1MB of cache. The previous PowerPC 970 (G5) processor only had a single core. In addition, the new 970MP can shut down one of the two cores and further reduce power consumption by reducing its frequency. Peak consumption is described as 100W which can be reduced to 40W.
Even with such power savings modes, it seems unlikely that the 970MP will approach the anticipiated plans from Intel to produce lower power consumption chips. Intel's future Performance per Watt roadmaps were cited as reasons for Apple's switch to Intel which is planned to begin in 2006.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
82 months ago
Cool.
Does the power saving mode of OSX take advantage of this?
Can the OS slow the CPU down and switch off a Core if its not needed?
Does the power saving mode of OSX take advantage of this?
Can the OS slow the CPU down and switch off a Core if its not needed?
82 months ago
Cool.
Does the power saving mode of OSX take advantage of this?
Can the OS slow the CPU down and switch off a Core if its not needed?
not sure... not sure how useful this is on a desktop machine anyway. Presumably sleep mode shuts down power consumption to almost nothing anyway.
arn
82 months ago
The ability to reduce heat dissipation from 100W -> 40W is sure impressive though, even if most people will never see their chips consume the full 100W. I wonder if Apple's CHUD tools will eventually support manually switching off one of the cores?
Now the only thing left is the real word benchmarks for these new chips. Lets see how they do compared to their Dual Processor counterparts...
And I'm almost positive that OS X should be able to slow the CPU's down. The 'Automatic' setting on all new Powermacs has taken advantage of the Processor Slewing ability of the G5.
Now the only thing left is the real word benchmarks for these new chips. Lets see how they do compared to their Dual Processor counterparts...
And I'm almost positive that OS X should be able to slow the CPU's down. The 'Automatic' setting on all new Powermacs has taken advantage of the Processor Slewing ability of the G5.
82 months ago
not sure... not sure how useful this is on a desktop machine anyway. Presumably sleep mode shuts down power consumption to almost nothing anyway.
arn
82 months ago
100W peak power consumption, whew!
Now do you see why there is no G5 PowerBook? ;) :rolleyes: :D
Now do you see why there is no G5 PowerBook? ;) :rolleyes: :D
82 months ago
100W peak power consumption, whew!
Now do you see why there is no G5 PowerBook? ;) :rolleyes: :D
Exactly what I was going to post. This is what IBM meant when they said they had 'low power G5s' in the wings!
82 months ago
I'm not really excited about this announcement. It's like saying, "Hey, look Timmy! I got you a new pair of artificial legs!", or something like that.
82 months ago
Yeah, the CPU control has been around for ages on the G5, it's just getting better :)
The thermal stuff is BS in a way; When comparing "apples to apples", the P4 is a monster. All the current 3.2-3.8 chips are rated up to a max of 130w, and even at the 100w rating that dualcore G5 gets, that's still 30w (about 2 low power G5s) cooler than a P4...
Where Apple plans to "make up for speed" they probably will in code. OS X has been "notoriously sloppy" with that one for years, shoot every new build so far has been "slightly tweaked" to squeeze more performance out since 10.0 days, and you KNOW that wasn't just hardware (If I load 10.0.4 on my dual 800 it'll run WAY slower than 10.4.0!)
Right now the only thing Intel has to winning Apple's favor is that they haven't pulled a "motorola" on Apple (yet). While the proof is in the pudding (P4? Massive decision change.. hey wait first NetBurst is the future and then it's crap?!).. sounds kinda like Apple right now..
But they haven't gotten ditched mid-line. Admittedly, I still don't think anyone at IBM was dumb enough to tell Steve Jobs to tell everyone they'd be able to have 3ghz processors in a year. Not even Intel went from 2-3ghz in 1 year, and they're all.. reputed and stuff.. for being "so fast" right now.
It still might be that the whole thing was a political decision -- sure maklar and rosetta have been around for ages, we knew that anyway; The decision to put it in action was not.
Every step in the "Intel" direction reveals yellow tape hanging loose. Intel people say "Some apple people came over and really liked what they saw", IBM people say "we never saw it coming", and Motorola people? Oh wait, they trade insults with Steve Jobs over the ROKR..
A certain company of the AIM alliance just got caught red handed! ;) Unfortunately, IBM gets to pay for it since they're not exactly off the hook for the 3ghz thing.
That, and apparently Steve Jobs really likes options, even that means being kicked out of Nordstrom's for Ross and Big Lots.
The thermal stuff is BS in a way; When comparing "apples to apples", the P4 is a monster. All the current 3.2-3.8 chips are rated up to a max of 130w, and even at the 100w rating that dualcore G5 gets, that's still 30w (about 2 low power G5s) cooler than a P4...
Where Apple plans to "make up for speed" they probably will in code. OS X has been "notoriously sloppy" with that one for years, shoot every new build so far has been "slightly tweaked" to squeeze more performance out since 10.0 days, and you KNOW that wasn't just hardware (If I load 10.0.4 on my dual 800 it'll run WAY slower than 10.4.0!)
Right now the only thing Intel has to winning Apple's favor is that they haven't pulled a "motorola" on Apple (yet). While the proof is in the pudding (P4? Massive decision change.. hey wait first NetBurst is the future and then it's crap?!).. sounds kinda like Apple right now..
But they haven't gotten ditched mid-line. Admittedly, I still don't think anyone at IBM was dumb enough to tell Steve Jobs to tell everyone they'd be able to have 3ghz processors in a year. Not even Intel went from 2-3ghz in 1 year, and they're all.. reputed and stuff.. for being "so fast" right now.
It still might be that the whole thing was a political decision -- sure maklar and rosetta have been around for ages, we knew that anyway; The decision to put it in action was not.
Every step in the "Intel" direction reveals yellow tape hanging loose. Intel people say "Some apple people came over and really liked what they saw", IBM people say "we never saw it coming", and Motorola people? Oh wait, they trade insults with Steve Jobs over the ROKR..
A certain company of the AIM alliance just got caught red handed! ;) Unfortunately, IBM gets to pay for it since they're not exactly off the hook for the 3ghz thing.
That, and apparently Steve Jobs really likes options, even that means being kicked out of Nordstrom's for Ross and Big Lots.
82 months ago
Intel's future Performance per Watt roadmaps were cited as reasons for Apple's switch to Intel which is planned to begin in 2006.
Apple switcht to Intel because all PC's are x86, consoles are PPC but Apple needed this switch to survive in the long run, late but brilliant move. :D
[ Read All Comments ]
Analytics firm Chitika today released a report showing that by its metrics iOS has now surpassed OS X in overall web traffic share in the United States. Chitika's methodology involves an analysis...
One of the most frequent reasons for an iPhone to go on a trip to the Apple Store's Genius Bar is because of water damage. Typically, a water damaged iPhone can be replaced for a flat $199...
TheVerge's Joshua Topolsky summarizes the iPad 3 casing findings reported earlier today, but also adds his own sources regarding some details of the iPad 3.
Image from RepairLabs
As...
Last July, Apple discontinued the white MacBook from its consumer lineup, pushing consumers toward the company's popular MacBook Air line or the 13-inch MacBook Pro. The company didn't kill...
Popular iPhone Twitter client Tweetbot has finally arrived on the iPad, with a user interface instantly familiar to any current Tweetbot user. Designed for the Twitter power-user, Tweetbot packs a...
