Re: TI-H: proc tech (OT)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: proc tech (OT)
um hello the G5(as well as the G4 and G3) is already out and in use in IBM's
newest mainframe S/390 they are not of the PowerPC(An IBM standard)
architechture. The actual processor name is the PowerPC 750 the G3 name was
used just to capture some of the G5's publicity and is an "apple thing". The
Power3 is the next powerPC processor due out from IBM (apple's computers
curently use procesors of IBM's design). I still don't see where you get the
G4 stuff cause its not related with IBM's G series or the procesors apple
curently uses.
>
>Actually, the G3 is the processor (at least the code name for it from
>before the official release) Yes, the G4 does have four processor
>cores (as confirmed by the ECE people here at CMU). As for the G5 or
>a "power3" processor, I have no information. I believe the processor
>the teacher was referring to may have been the G4, although, since I
>don't know of the G5, that may have been correct.
>
>> You do know that the G3 is not a processor it's just what apple calls
their
>> computers that run on IBM's PowerPC 750 processor. IBM has also already
>> released the G5 although it is not based on the powerPC architecture. but
>> they are working on the power3 witch is powerPC complient and preforms
605
>> MFloPS (Million FLOting point calculations Per Second)
>>
>> Grant where the hell ya getin this G4 crap?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Firepower5@aol.com <Firepower5@aol.com>
>> To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
>> Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 5:54 PM
>> Subject: Re: TI-H: proc tech (OT)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>In a message dated 12/5/98 3:38:50 PM Central Standard Time,
>>>malluck@bellsouth.net writes:
>>>
>>>> I spent some time talking with one of my teachers (an advid mac user)
and
>> he
>>>> was
>>>> telling me about the G5. He said it was due out by the end of the year
>>>2000.
>>>> Anyway this processor is actually a small cluster of 4 processors and
>> each
>>>> of
>>>> these processors can handle a totally different task. You could
dedicate
>>>one
>>>> to
>>>> games, one to graphics, one to the os, ect. He also said it would be
>>>> possible to
>>>> run 4 operating systems running at once (more likely you would have to
>>>> suspend
>>>> the use of one while you use the other). It would be nice if wintel
>> could
>>>do
>>>> something like this in the near future. The dual pentiums II are nice,
>> but
>>>> so
>>>> little software is made to run on a 2 processor system that it's not
>> really
>>>> worth investing in it (imho). Ansys reported that the you only receive
a
>>>10%
>>>> increase on most applications. :(
>>>> -Malluck
>>>
>>> In case ya care, Intel is working on a lot of new chips. Everybody
knows
>>>about the 64-bit Merced, due in H1 2000 (1st half). Supposedly this is
>> going
>>>to be a four-way chipset like what you described above. They're
guessing
>>>they'll hit 1 GHz with this chip. Then is the 32-bit Foster, in H2 2000.
>>>This will be supposedly their last 32-bit chip for PC applications. It's
>> also
>>>going to hit 1 GHz. In H2 2001, the 64-bit McKinley will arrive, with a
>> .18
>>>micron fab. Eventually, they will move the McKinley to .13 fab and
rename
>> it
>>>Madison (H1 2002). A less powerful Madison, called Deerfield, will also
be
>>>released simultaneously (or at least very close).
>>>
>>>Rob Hornick
>>>(Just got new PC Magazine =)
>
> __
> ---------------------------/ /----------------------- / /\
>| - Brandon May - \ \ | / / \
>| / / ..o.. | / / /\ \
>| mailto:bbm@andrew.cmu.edu \ \ \\|// | / / /\ \ \
>| / / ( o o ) | / / / \ \ \
> ---------------------------\ \--oOOO----(_)----OOOo-- / /_/____\ \ \
> /__________\ \ \
> \_____________\/