[malcolm]

I've finally accepted the fact that it's going to take a lot longer to redesign the G5 processor so it isn't too hot and noisy to fit into a slim powerbook-style case.
But I still don't want to rush out to buy the just-released 1.67 GHz pb. Why? Anticipation of the 7448 chip... the hope that with this new chip, and a faster system bus, the powerbook will make a real leap forward (rather than spinning its wheels with a 167MHz bump).
Am I just re-directing all my futile G5 hopes and dreams onto another processor that hasn't yet been proven, and that, in reality, won't make that much of a difference? Or am I smart to wait a few months. Will it be a few months?
Can those of you who weighed in so intelligently on the over-hyped G5 chip please bring me up to speed on the 7448?
thanks,
Malcolm

[Enki]

iF YOU NEED an PB get one now, don't wait. If you just lust after mythical chips (both of them currently) then continue to do that but be prepared to wait a long time.

Personally I'm glad I bought my DP500 a few Octobers ago even though there was the "solid" "it's going to ship in January 4-cored G4+" all over the net. I'm still waiting for that one! Got a lot of work done in the meantime, a few games too...

[Nuendo]

Hello to the forum, first time poster from Germany here. So sorry for my English.

Although I yesterday ordered my new PowerBook, I'd love to see the 7448 in their next update. Look at the 7448's tech specs from Freescale. They claim a power consumption of less than 10 W running at 1.4 GHz. I'm not sure but isn't that about half of what the current 7447A requires? This would let let the PowerBooks at least compete with the new Centrinos in terms of battery life and portability. And isn't portability what the PowerBook ist all about?

[ChrisKelvin]

i guess that the freescale 7448 wouldn't make so much difference. it's based on the next e600 core, but it should still have just an 200 mhz front side bus. the MPC8641 and the MPC8641D are also based on the e600 core but with 667MHz fsb and Serial RapidIO®.

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...=DRPPCDUALCORE

if ibm can't build an low power 970 until wwdc or paris i see apple go with the e700 in 2006

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...018rH3bTdG0230

but next week i will order an new 12" pb for my girlfriend

[malcolm]

Even a 200MHz frontside bus would make a noticeable difference in performance, though, right?
The reason I bring up the 7448 pb version is that I don't think there are any of those pie-in-the-sky issues associated with it as there are with the G5. From what I understand, it's 'pin-compatible' with the current pb processors, so it would seem to me to be not just a straightforward and obvious next step, but possibly a pb revision that's not too far off.
What do you think?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ChrisKelvin the MPC8641 and the MPC8641D are also based on the e600 core but with 667MHz fsb and Serial RapidIO®.

1) They're 8xxx CPUs. IOW, they're not designed for desktops, laptops, or personal computers, for that matter. They're for embedded devices.

2) I'm not holding my breath on Motorola / Freescale announcements like that. I still remember the 85xx "G5" fiasco.

[ChrisKelvin]

Originally Posted by chucker 1) They're 8xxx CPUs. IOW, they're not designed for desktops, laptops, or personal computers, for that matter. They're for embedded devices. 2) I'm not holding my breath on Motorola / Freescale announcements like that. I still remember the 85xx "G5" fiasco.

1)i know, that was just for complete coverage

2)you have there a point

let's at least dream

The G4 (7447A) running at 1.33GHz has a 'typical' power consumption of 18 watts, at 1.42 GHz it has a 'typical' power consumption of 21 watts.

The G5 (970FX) running at 1.4 GHz has 'typical' power consumption of 12.3 watts, at 2.0 GHz it has a 'typical' consumption of 24.5 watts. Around 2.2 to 2.3GHz and above is where power consumption really shoots up.


The problem is supply, not power usage or heat. IBM can't make enough of the PPC970FX chips as it is now, with what models are already using it. Adding one or two more, which comprise a large portion of sales, would be a very unwise choice for Apple at the moment.

[Nuendo]

Originally Posted by mdnky The G5 (970FX) running at 1.4 GHz has 'typical' power consumption of 12.3 watts, at 2.0 GHz it has a 'typical' consumption of 24.5 watts. Around 2.2 to 2.3GHz and above is where power consumption really shoots up.

I somewhere read the 970FX's power consumption was actually higher than in the data provided by IBM.

A second point is that due to the shrinked structures (90 nm as opposed to 120 nm for the 970) the heat generated by the 970FX emits through a smaller surface thereby increasing the difficulty in cooling this chip.

[ChrisKelvin]

mdnky: The G5 (970FX) running at 1.4 GHz has 'typical' power consumption of 12.3 watts, at 2.0 GHz it has a 'typical' consumption of 24.5 watts.

i didn't know that. i thought like nuendo does that it would be higher.

thank you for the link

[malcolm]

Originally Posted by mdnky The G4 (7447A) running at 1.33GHz has a 'typical' power consumption of 18 watts, at 1.42 GHz it has a 'typical' power consumption of 21 watts. The G5 (970FX) running at 1.4 GHz has 'typical' power consumption of 12.3 watts, at 2.0 GHz it has a 'typical' consumption of 24.5 watts. Around 2.2 to 2.3GHz and above is where power consumption really shoots up

O.K., so the G5 (970FX) chip takes too much power. But the 7448 chip doesn't have this problem, does it? That's why I'm hoping we see it in the next pb release, shipping with Tiger, by June. With a faster FS bus, this should make for a meaningful upgrade (I just can't get excited by this latest release) - - at least this is my hope.
Unless there are problems with fitting these 7448 chips into the pb that I'm not aware of???

[Electric Monk]

It's not the fact that the 970FX requires that level of power. The problem is that the system controller for the 970FX requires just as much power as the chip itself.

[Corpus_Callosum]

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050114A7040.html

Please read and post your thoughts on what you see on this page.

[709]

Originally Posted by Corpus_Callosum http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050114A7040.html Please read and post your thoughts on what you see on this page.

Gah.

There's already a thread about this article here.