[solitere]

What kind of future CPU upgrades can we expect from Sonnet, GigaDesign Powerlogix. We�re at 1.7 Ghz now. How much further can (motorola) freescale push "G4" series of processors. Can we expect more faster upgrades this year.

I�m just wondering because i�ve been thinking doing a CPU upgrade this year for my QS Dual 800 machine.

[Lateralus]

From the talks I've had with Giga people via e-mail, I have reason to believe that they designed their current/7447 upgrade PCB with future Freescale chips in mind, namely the 7448.

The 7448 is supposed to be sampling by summer at 1.8GHz+ and offers twice the L2 cache of the 7447, which should offer a significant performance boost in conjunction with the the clock speed jump.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Giga and friends offering Dual 1.8GHz @ 2.0GHz 7448 upgrades this year.

After that, the future of the G4 gets a little more foggy. Freescale has two successors in the works for the G4, the e600 and e700. There is very little known about the e700, but the e600 is a directly derived from the current G4 design, but I do not believe it is pin compatible. So assuming that using the e600 in future upgrades wont cause any software issues, the upgrade designers will still have a good bit of work to graft the pin-incompatible e600 to any of the current PCB designs.

But assuming they're able to do it, you can look for 2.5GHz+ out of the e600 and 3GHz+ out of the e700.

[MORT A POTTY]

yeah, the 7448 is the future of the G4 through 2005, while 2006 should be the e600. I really wouldn't want to predict anything beyond that, but I do believe that the e600 is pin compatible with the 7448 (and the 7447A, etc.) but the G4 still has a strong life ahead of it provided Freescale can stick to their rather aggressive roadmaps for the aging chip.

[MORT A POTTY]

no, you're right. the e600 is NOT a drop-in replacement for the 7448.

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

this pretty much detaisl the evolution of the G4 for the next few years and IMO is will be a fantastic evolution which will fix the main problem of the G4... the pathetic system bus, which with the e600 will be raised from the pathetic max of 167 (7448 will have 200Mhz) and will take it up to 667Mhz which will help considerably. This is in adition to dual cores, etc.

[Catfish_Man]

The e600 is not a processor, it's a core. Specifically, the G4 core with some very minor tweakage:

7448: e600 core, MPXbux, 1MB L2 cache, pin compatible with 74xx
8641: e600 core, on chip memory controller (and a buncha other stuff), 1MB L2 cache, not pin compatible
8641D: dual core 8641

[solitere]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
The e600 is not a processor, it's a core. Specifically, the G4 core with some very minor tweakage:

7448: e600 core, MPXbux, 1MB L2 cache, pin compatible with 74xx

The 7448 could be pretty snappy with 1 MB L2 cache. I hope someone will make a upgrade card soon....

Thanx for the intel guys!

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by solitere:
The 7448 could be pretty snappy with 1 MB L2 cache. I hope someone will make a upgrade card soon....

Thanx for the intel guys!

they will use it... but it won't be availible for a little while yet. sometime in Q2 would be my guess.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by solitere:
The 7448 could be pretty snappy with 1 MB L2 cache. I hope someone will make a upgrade card soon....

Probably not for several months... after Apple starts incorporating it in Macs.

In the meantime I'm running happily with my Cube 1.7 GHz 7447A and GeForce2 MX. I leave this thing on 24/7 and it runs cool. I never bother putting it to sleep anymore. The only thing I do is let OS X spin the drive down when unused, which just means a few second delay when I come back to the machine.

Thanx for the intel guys!

LOL

[brucejy]

When do you think a 7448 will be available?

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by brucejy:
When do you think a 7448 will be available?

my best guess would be late 2005 and by late I mean 2H05

[Lateralus]

Any word on a shipment date for your Giga yet?

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
Any word on a shipment date for your Giga yet?

damn, you guys seem to always ask on the days I call.

THAT'S FREAKING ME OUT!!!

are you stalking me? you are in Tulsa too...


anyway, I called today (as you can tell from the above...mess) and the guy said that it may ship out tomorrow (Friday) or Monday but they wouldn't know till later today and I didn't care to call back and bug 'em about it. either way, it will be very soon.

but believe me, as happy as I'll be to know it's shipped and when I get it and stuff, I'll be posting updates like crazy.

and pictures, LOTS and LOTS of pictures

[Lateralus]

Stalking you? No. You might wanna change your undies though. You've been wearing those Tweety Bird boxers for five days now.

Anyways, looks like I'm back in our little upgrade war. After a day or two with the MDD, which was not the fortunate recipient of Apple's power supply program so it's louder than hell, I have discovered that I like my DA quite a bit more. So, the MDD is on eBay as we speak.

And yes, pictures, benchmarks, pictures... then you can nap, then more pictures, and more benchmarks.

[MORT A POTTY]

you mean instead of studying for my exams?

meh, you make a solid point

(I don't wear tweety (right now) thank you very much

I will run some stuff though, including one very very detailed "suite" that I snagged from ArsTechnica forums which I will compile and run. it will tell you infinitely more than you wish to know, BELIEVE ME. I've ran it once for fun. I'll also run AltiVec Fractal Carbon, boot time, the obligatory XBench, and maybe some other junk (iTunes visualizer?)

[MORT A POTTY]

called again today... some not so good news and some pretty good news

the 1417 will be shipping out next week. but, I didn't order the 1417, I ordered the 1617. they're still waiting on the 1.6Ghz chips and it'll be another 2-3 weeks. damn.

I'll end with a bit of good news.

I asked the person on the telephone about possible overclocking of the 1617 and I asked if it would be possible to maybe get it to run stable at 1.86Ghz...the individual I spoke with unofficially told me that they have been able to get them up to 2Ghz. ! THAT would be nice, but I doubt I'll run it at 2 even if I could get it that high. but damn... that would be nice.

anyway, benchmarks I have down so far to run

boot time
ArsTechnica Testbench suite
AltiVec Fractal Carbon
XBench
UT 2004 flyby and botmatch on asbestos and one other level (any suggestions?)
Cinebench 2003

[Lateralus]

I'll be making my purchasing decision based on how much you get your 1617 to overclock.

[Chinasaur]

Mort,

Gotta run OGR d00d! I REALLY want to know how that upgrade performs vs my 933

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Gotta run OGR d00d! I REALLY want to know how that upgrade performs vs my 933

Cube with Sonnet 1.7 GHz G4 7447A upgrade

RC5-72: 17,539,080 keys/sec
OGR-P2: 39,569,381 nodes/sec

[Chinasaur]

Eug! Thank you for that information.

I am looking forward to getting the Dual inside my 933 and getting ~78stubs/sec out of one box

[crooner]

Thought I'd jump in on this very good thread.
I have a dual 1Ghz QuickSilver and am thinking *very* seriously about the dual 1.7 Giga upgrade (based on the 1.6 chips).

Is the general consensus that I won't miss the L3 cache in terms of performance?

[bossep]

Originally posted by crooner:
Thought I'd jump in on this very good thread.
I have a dual 1Ghz QuickSilver and am thinking *very* seriously about the dual 1.7 Giga upgrade (based on the 1.6 chips).

Is the general consensus that I won't miss the L3 cache in terms of performance?

Hi,

I am new here, but have been a Mac user since 1991. I have a G4 'Sawtooth' 400MHz, 1.5GB RAM, ATI Radeon 8500, WD 80GB HDD, Pioneer Superdrive. Since Sonnet launched their 1.7GHz upgrade card I have been doing research on what card to buy, 1.4GHz or 1.7GHz? It is pointing very much towards the 1.7GHz as that gets less hot than the 1.4 and requires less Watt. Before, the heatzink and fan included in 1.7GHz played some importance too, but now all Sonnet cards includes both. I have still not decided, and now the '7448' is discussed too. But perhaps that one will be an overkill for my 100MHz system bus?

Bo

[MORT A POTTY]

if you're upgrading a sawtooth, you should definitely get the 7447A chips because of the power issue (the PSU is relatively tiny in terms of output)

you WILL miss the L3 cache though.

also, there is no real reason to go 1.6 as opposed to 1.42 as they are essentially the same chip, just rated differently. so... meh. I say this, yet I ordered the dual 1.6Ghz rated part

also, I'd go Giga over Sonnet only because they:

A: include Drive 10 in the box with every processor upgrade
and
B: have user-setable jumpers for the bus multiplier (which determines processor speed) and even jumpers to set the voltage. setting the bus multiplier will NOT void the warranty, but setting the voltage will UNLESS you call Giga's customer support first and you both determine that this would be OK.

these advantages (to me) make the Giga upgrades stack up exceptionally well against the Sonnet upgrades.

[Eug Wanker]

Over in the Cube forums, the recurring theme is the Sonnet cards Just Work� at the stated speeds in the Cube, while the speed jumpers on the Gigas are used to underclock them to increase stability. Not a good sign.

Basically, I chose Sonnet on reputation alone. An n=1 is not representative of anything, but my 1.7 works great.

Now a Sawtooth is different since it's a tower, but still...

[bossep]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Over in the Cube forums, the recurring theme is the Sonnet cards Just Work� at the stated speeds in the Cube, while the speed jumpers on the Gigas are used to underclock them to increase stability. Not a good sign.

Basically, I chose Sonnet on reputation alone. An n=1 is not representative of anything, but my 1.7 works great.

Now a Sawtooth is different since it's a tower, but still...

I am going for Sonnet too on reputation, and their support. My n=3 makes a double cpu impossible. My 'Sawtooth's' 200W power supply points to 1.7GHz. The speed bump, with or without L3 cache, will be huge, going from 400MHz to 1.7GHz.

[crooner]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
you WILL miss the L3 cache though.

Even going from dual 1Ghz to dual 1.7Ghz? Are we talking in terms of every day, noticeable performance? If so, would you advise me to stick with what I have?

Thanks.

[Eug Wanker]

If I had a dual 1.0, I'd get either a dual 1.7 or else stick with the dual 1.0.

The single 1.7 would be a downgrade in many ways (and I own a single 1.7 Cube).

Actually, in your shoes, I'd probably just sit tight, and save up for a dual 2.5 G5 and get that when the G5 goes to 3 GHz.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
If I had a dual 1.0, I'd get either a dual 1.7 or else stick with the dual 1.0.

The single 1.7 would be a downgrade in many ways (and I own a single 1.7 Cube).

Actually, in your shoes, I'd probably just sit tight, and save up for a dual 2.5 G5 and get that when the G5 goes to 3 GHz.

yeah, I would never advise going from a dual processor setup to a single processor setup. hell, even adding up the clockspeeds of the CPUs (NOTE: this is just a hypothetical type deal, real-world performance will NOT make this true even close to all of the time) you add them up and you have 2Ghz now w/ 2MB of L3 Cache per processor and 256K of L2, now you'd be going from that to a single 1.7Ghz which will u se less power, but has 2x the L2 cache (a nice improvement) but has ZERO L3 cache.

sit tight unless you are going dual 1.7Ghz.


also of note, on Giga's website they now list the single processor 7447A upgrades as rated to 1.8Ghz and the dual 1.42Ghz formerly rated to dual 1.73Ghz is now rated to dual 1.8Ghz with no change to the dual 1.6Ghz (although I'd expect them to change that shortly as well)

[crooner]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
yeah, I would never advise going from a dual processor setup to a single processor setup. hell, even adding up the clockspeeds of the CPUs (NOTE: this is just a hypothetical type deal, real-world performance will NOT make this true even close to all of the time) you add them up and you have 2Ghz now w/ 2MB of L3 Cache per processor and 256K of L2, now you'd be going from that to a single 1.7Ghz which will u se less power, but has 2x the L2 cache (a nice improvement) but has ZERO L3 cache.

sit tight unless you are going dual 1.7Ghz.


also of note, on Giga's website they now list the single processor 7447A upgrades as rated to 1.8Ghz and the dual 1.42Ghz formerly rated to dual 1.73Ghz is now rated to dual 1.8Ghz with no change to the dual 1.6Ghz (although I'd expect them to change that shortly as well)

If I did do the upgrade, I would most definitely get the DUAL 1.7 (or 1.8 as it is now). Never even considered for a second a single CPU. I love the speed benefits of dual chips. I think it�s almost a must for OS X.

I'm still on the fence, though, regarding the L3 cache issue. Any word on when they might reach 2Ghz (without having to overclock the sht out of it)?

So now that we've established that I'm definitely talking about the dual upgrade, what do you folks advise... stick with my Dual 1Ghz with the L3 or bite for the dual 1.7/1.8? My gut tells me that the speed increase of the processors will make up for the lack of the L3 cache, but I'm not really that well versed on what information is stored on the L3 and how the newer chips without L3 make up for that. Can anyone explain the specifics?

[Sr Speedy]

crooner:

The G5 and the new Powerbooks do not ship with L3 caches. I would review the performance of the Powerbook and use that as a base line comparing it to L3 cache processors.

The L2 cache @ processor speed IMHO more than make up for it.

Speedy

[bossep]

Originally posted by Sr Speedy:
crooner:

The G5 and the new Powerbooks do not ship with L3 caches. I would review the performance of the Powerbook and use that as a base line comparing it to L3 cache processors.

The L2 cache @ processor speed IMHO more than make up for it.

Speedy

I had a look at benchmarks tests. The base was a G4 'Sawtooth'. I compared the 1.4GHz upgrade card with L3 cache support and the 1.7GHz upgrade card without support of L3 cache. I was surprised to find that except from starting up MacOS X 10.3.7, the 1.4GHz was doing the job quicker than the 1.7GHz.

The difference between the G4 and the Powerbook is as far as I know faster memory and 167MHz system bus compared to 100MHz on the G4 used in the test.

I can see why Powerbook use a chip without L3 cache, but what about the G5? Why do they not use a chip with L3 cache support?

The test shows that the L3 cache makes a difference. Would the G5 not be better with a L3 cache?

[Lateralus]

The L3 cache makes a difference on the G4 because it runs faster than the G4's system bus. Look at it like this;

The L3 cache on my GigaDesigns 1.47GHz G4 runs at 6:1, or approximately 250MHz. You can look at this as basically having a 250MHz bus for 2MBs of data.

The G5's system bus runs at half the processor speed, much faster than an L3 cache would. So because of the system bus, L3 is not only unnecessary, but it would actually be at a disadvantage to the system bus.

All the G5 really needs is a much larger L2 cache, and I'm at a loss as to why it doesn't have one yet.

[bossep]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
The L3 cache makes a difference on the G4 because it runs faster than the G4's system bus. Look at it like this;

The L3 cache on my GigaDesigns 1.47GHz G4 runs at 6:1, or approximately 250MHz. You can look at this as basically having a 250MHz bus for 2MBs of data.

The G5's system bus runs at half the processor speed, much faster than an L3 cache would. So because of the system bus, L3 is not only unnecessary, but it would actually be at a disadvantage to the system bus.

All the G5 really needs is a much larger L2 cache, and I'm at a loss as to why it doesn't have one yet.

Here is the test i referred to:

Change Parts Being Tested | Modify Tests Being Run

Time (in seconds) to Boot 10.3
Lower is better: Time (in seconds) to Rip Audio CD
Lower is better: 21 step routine script using Adobe Photoshop 8 CS
Lower is better: Time (in seconds) to open and close 1000 windows in the finder
Lower is better: AltiVec Fractal Carbon - Overall Score
Higher is better:
Apple PowerMac G4 400MHz "Sawtooth" or "Gigabit Ethernet" (100MHz Bus) 107 766 902 42 1316

Sonnet Encore/ST G4/1.4GHz 95 287 362 17 5250.2
Sonnet Encore/ST G4/1.7GHz 7447 38 324 374 22 6435.2
(512k L2 / 0MB L3)


Now I understand. And it is a good thing to wait with a G5 until they add a cpu with more L2 cache?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
All the G5 really needs is a much larger L2 cache, and I'm at a loss as to why it doesn't have one yet.

Patience my friend. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 3 GHz G5 have 1 MB L2.

Originally posted by bossep:
Now I understand. And it is a good thing to wait with a G5 until they add a cpu with more L2 cache?

Well, there's also the G4 7448 coming, and that has 1 MB L2. I suspect we'll see it by the end of the year.

[bossep]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Patience my friend. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 3 GHz G5 have 1 MB L2.


Well, there's also the G4 7448 coming, and that has 1 MB L2. I suspect we'll see it by the end of the year.

Do I read you correct that I could wait, and install the 7448 in my G4 'Sawtooth' and also find it in PBG4? I am concerned about the heat issue. The 1.4GHz seems to give more for the money while the 1.7GHz would be more friendly to my G4.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by bossep:
Do I read you correct that I could wait, and install the 7448 in my G4 'Sawtooth' and also find it in PBG4? I am concerned about the heat issue.

Maybe. The 7448 is Freescale's first 90 nm G4, so it should be lower power, or higher GHz at the same power, with more L2.

Freescale says they're supposed to be out in volume in the next 6 months, but who knows if they'll come thru or not. Also it always takes a few months for the upgrade companies to come out with the upgrade once the new CPU comes out.

[bossep]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Maybe. The 7448 is Freescale's first 90 nm G4, so it should be lower power, or higher GHz at the same power, with more L2.

Freescale says they're supposed to be out in volume in the next 6 months, but who knows if they'll come thru or not. Also it always takes a few months for the upgrade companies to come out with the upgrade once the new CPU comes out.

The question is how much the system can take. I guess the system has a upper limit when you can't take advantage of the power from the cpu, and its better to buy a G5 (or G6).

Sounds interesting!

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by bossep:
The question is how much the system can take. I guess the system has a upper limit when you can't take advantage of the power from the cpu, and its better to buy a G5 (or G6).

Sounds interesting!

well, hopefully we'll be able to see the G4 top out the bus. if the future dual core G4s will be put in processor upgrades then I'm sure we will.

I'm also getting tired of waiting, thinking about having them just ship me the dual 1.4 (rated to dual 1.8 now) since there shouldn't be any difference in performance.

can anyone convince me one way or the other... to keep the dual 1.6 on order, or to get with the dual 1.42. they should have the same chance of OCing to 1.86Ghz, no?

[Tyre MacAdmin]

I'm personally waiting to see them hit the 2ghz mark before I upgrade. I think the longer you can wait the better. Unless you have to have it for some huge project you're working on I see no reason to upgrade.

One possible path could be to buy a single chip upgrade now and then wait for the most topped out upgrade made... if you have the money and the only thing you're buying this for is for video games or something and you're upgrading an single cpu's machine now video games don't yet use dual cpu's and nothing is going to profit that much from a dual upgrade besides DCC, NLE and highend Audio applications.

The longer you wait, the less it costs to upgrade.

[MORT A POTTY]

I've waited long enough and I won't have the money in the future, so now was the exact time for me to upgrade.

[crooner]

Here's some questions I still can't get a straight answer on:

Why is the 1.4Ghz chip clocked at 1.8 while the 1.6Ghz is still clocked in at 1.73? Is it because of the 133 bus system on a Quicksilver? WTF?

Also, why would the 1.8Ghz (after overclocking) upgrade sell for LESS than the 1.73Ghz? Surely you would thing that the fastest upgrade would be priced the highest, but the first question must play into this, i.e. charge more for the 1.6Ghz rated CPU. So why, oh, why isn't the 1.6 clocked to 1.8 (officially)? Are they waiting for a new, higher speed spec to advertise it at?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[Weezer]

Originally posted by crooner:
Here's some questions I still can't get a straight answer on:

Why is the 1.4Ghz chip clocked at 1.8 while the 1.6Ghz is still clocked in at 1.73? Is it because of the 133 bus system on a Quicksilver? WTF?

Also, why would the 1.8Ghz (after overclocking) upgrade sell for LESS than the 1.73Ghz? Surely you would thing that the fastest upgrade would be priced the highest, but the first question must play into this, i.e. charge more for the 1.6Ghz rated CPU. So why, oh, why isn't the 1.6 clocked to 1.8 (officially)? Are they waiting for a new, higher speed spec to advertise it at?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

It is because they have the actual 1.4 chips in stock and Im sure they have played with them. The 1.6 however is still theoretical and they don't have them to actually play with and overclock, so they are not sure how high they can get them up to. Im hoping for around dual 2 ghz.

[crooner]

Originally posted by Weezer:
It is because they have the actual 1.4 chips in stock and Im sure they have played with them. The 1.6 however is still theoretical and they don't have them to actually play with and overclock, so they are not sure how high they can get them up to. Im hoping for around dual 2 ghz.

Thanks, Weezer. That makes sense. It also convinces me (whether or not it be speculation) to wait and see exactly what level the new chips will perform at. I think 2Ghz is possible and would definitely make me take the bite.

Here�s hoping we don't have too much longer to wait...

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Weezer:
It is because they have the actual 1.4 chips in stock and Im sure they have played with them. The 1.6 however is still theoretical and they don't have them to actually play with and overclock, so they are not sure how high they can get them up to. Im hoping for around dual 2 ghz.

EXACTLY. I called and asked about this monday in fact.

heh, I bet Owen is tired of fielding my questions. I've been calling about once a week for the past month

the 1.4s clocked better than they had hoped, and they didn't want to guess on the 1.6s so they are playing it safe and leaving it as-is 'till they can get a better idea of what to expect. I think they'll be able to get 1.86Ghz out of 'em, but I truly do hope for 2.0Ghz. then it's pretty safe to say that they would beat the 1.42Ghz 7455 upgrades in more than just power savings

[Weezer]

mort, time to call them again I'm eagerly awaiting your tests

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Weezer:
mort, time to call them again I'm eagerly awaiting your tests

ok, I'll call when they're open later today.

I'm eagerly awaiting the processors too you know

[crooner]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
ok, I'll call when they're open later today.

I'm eagerly awaiting the processors too you know

Thanks for being the one to "take point" on this one, Mort.
I'm very eager to see what numbers they get out of the 1.6 chips. It they get close enough to 2Ghz I think that'll justify the upgrade from my dual 1Ghz. Even with the lack of L3 cache, I think the big boost in speed will be noticeable.

Looking forward to your findings.

[MORT A POTTY]

unless they say what the 14.5x bus multiplyer is it looks like it'll either be able to go up to a 13.5x, 14x, or 15x.

don't hold your breath for 15x that'll be 2.0Ghz (actually 1.995Ghz...) but still. 14x would be 1.86Ghz.

so, we'll see.

[MORT A POTTY]

sadness.... very early March.



but then again, that's kinda what they were announced at....

[Lateralus]

E-mail from Owen @ Giga;

"Ed,

We have received and sold out of our first shipment of dual 1.8GHz upgrades based on the 1.42GHz Freescale chip. As you might already know, the 1.8GHz was announce as a 1.7/1.73GHz upgrade. Our characterization and testing exceeded our conservative estimates and it was release as a 1.8GHz. We have not yet received production quantities of the dual upgrades base on the 1.6GHz Freescale ship (2-3weeks est.). We will not be able to test and finalize a release speed until this happens. I believe that the product will be able to run reliably at a minimum of 1.8GHz but until we do final testing our specifications will reflect our announced speeds.

I hope this answers your questions. If there is anything else I can do for you please contact me.

Owen"

I can wait a little while longer.

While you may be hoping for 1.86, I'm hoping for 1.93.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
E-mail from Owen @ Giga;



I can wait a little while longer.

While you may be hoping for 1.86, I'm hoping for 1.93.

exactly what he told me on el telefono. I'm not hoping for 1.86, I'm hoping for 1.995Ghz

I'm expecting 1.86Ghz though.