[DrBoar]

http://macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu...003-07-23#6206
GHz range----------Number of CPUs out of a wafer of 105 CPUs --------------Category
0.8-1.2----------------0.8--------------------------------------------------N
1.2-1.4----------------1.2--------------------------------------------------N
1.6 --------------------14.5-------------------------------------------------L
1.8 --------------------40.5-------------------------------------------------L
2.0 --------------------24.7------------------------------------------------L
2.5 --------------------1.3--------------------------------------------------P
2.7 --------------------3.0--------------------------------------------------P
2.8 --------------------0.7--------------------------------------------------P

Basically 60% of total production ends up in the 1.8-2.0 GHz range almost nothing runs slower than 1.6 GHz or faster than 2.5 GHz
The categories corresponds to something like, below, at and above expected speeds for N , L and P respectively

Motorola has problem with the PPC 7457 with only 15 out of 98 CPUs in a wafer reaching the "L" status (P is for obvious reasons not discussed) This could expalin delays for the portables. L status is 0.8 to 1.3 GHz.
According to Motorola (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps...p?code=MPC7455) the 7457 will be out in February of 2003
In the PPC salesfact.pdf Motorola talk about "Motorolas strong G4 family roadmap and consistent performance delivery" That is sublime


The 7455 series is doing well with 41 % in the L and 30% in the P categorie.
L status is 600MHz to 1GHz

So to conclude is able to get 30 % of their 7455 past 1 GHz and thus still 70% of their prodction in the MHz range. IBM has more than 99% above 1 GHz and have more than 25% at 2 GHz and above

[Eug]

IBM has more than 99% above 1 GHz and have more than 25% at 2 GHz and above

My reading of that is that (if it is to be believed) is that 17.5% fail, leaving 86.7/105 CPUs.

Of those 86.7, 0.8 are in the 0.8-1.2 GHz range, which means that 85.9 are 1.2 GHz and above. That's 82%. Still pretty good though.

[Spliffdaddy]

Why the missing info between 2GHz & 2.5GHz ?

That's a big gap.

Hard to tell if there's any chance of overclocking. Doesn't look good though.

It's gonna take a core revision and/or die shrink to get the 970 to 2.5GHz.

[DrBoar]

It does look constrained with CPUs above 2 GHz., but the current lineup is avery odd one were the high end gives most bangs or the buck. If the speed bump for the next generartion will be small say 2.2 to 2.4 GHz a line up of dual 1.6 dual 1.8 and dual 2.2-2.3 it would still be a very substantial boost to the towers due to the dual CPUs in the low and mid range. The High end would also be differentiated from the midrange. Here the low end or midrange offer the most bang for the the bucks and the high end offer the most performance but at a higher premium, as is usually the case. Having all duals would separate the towers from the iMac and the high yields would also enable Apple to put the G5 in the high volume iMac



The very low yields above 2 GHz is a sign of consistent manufacturing
If they aimed at 1.6-2.0 GHz and most of their CPUs end up there it means that they A. can meet their goal. B that they had a realistic ambition.
If they had a higher percentage above 2.5 GHz and below 1.2 GHz it would mean that they had designed a 3 GHz CPU that they are unable to manufacture and that those problem scatter the speed all over the place.

things look good so far

[Peder Rice]

What this shows is that 83% of the chips will run in the 1.2GHz range (hint, hint PowerBook).

But it also shows that only 5% of the chips are ready for 2.5GHz, meaning that some changes are definitely necessary to make the next significant PowerMac update. However, simply guessing along a chart line, 17% of all 970s could clock as high as 2.25GHz, which alone is a fairly substantial upgrade without any reworking of the chip. This would offer Apple at least a small jump around January or so if the 980 (GPUL2) is not ready.

[waffffffle]

Does anyone else think that since there are so many chips coming out at 1.8 GHz that their either might be a price drop in the 1.8 GHz model or maybe a dual 1.8 config offered soon?

They can also clock them down and offer dualies in all 3 models. I personally think that the 1.6 GHz G5 is too expensive for a single processor model, but if that was a DP I think the price would be fair.

[Eug]

The consensus at Ars is that these numbers are bullsh!t.

The die size is supposedly 121 mm2, but the wafer size is 300 mm in diameter. That would suggest over 500 chips per wafer, not 105.