"WHAT IF" The G5/Eleven and the 970 are one and same or at least kissing cousins.
Since we're speculating about IBM's 970 finding it's way into a Mac near you, I thought I'd ask a potentially stupid question, so I can resolve loose ends in the G5 Universe and get completely into the tale of the Power4 on depressants.
Now some of you might laugh at me, but honestly the little details I've read about Eleven give me the impression we were getting the Uncanny X-men with Dark Phoenix to boot(the Wrecking Crew), but now we're getting X-Caliber after Kitty Pride died (nothing uncanny about them) and we're happy about it. [Just a little levity there.]
Anyway, I have been under the impression that Apple was responsible for it's R&D where it's chip design was concerned as long as it conformed to the Book E specification that the AIM alliance agreed upon. I read this about the time one of the rumor sites alleged that Apple had hired it's own microprocessor team. Concurrently, there was much speculation about a clause that Apple could buy Motorola's fabs for 500 million or something. I could be wrong, so that's why I am asking?
However, if this assumption is correct, then I'd like to know what would stop Apple from taking the specs. for the G5 to IBM and asking them to produce it for them. Or, if Apple didn't design the G5 and Moto did but didn't want to build it for the reasons mentioned in Architosh, is it possible for Apple to buy the designs or license them and have IBM produce the chip for them. Maybe IBM and Apple could have licensed them jointly. IBM had noted that this year they would be adding to the companies they were fabbing processors for.
Like I said, I could be completely wrong, but is any of this possible?
If memory serves, wasn't the G5 also a 32 and 64 bit mode chip? Could it be that when Moto and Apple set out to design the G5 that maybe they began somewhere in the neigborhood of the Power4? I mean how much difference is there really between the G3s of IBM and Moto. From what I understand, there really isn't much difference between the G4 and the G3s (though I really need the great guys over at Arstechnica.Com; namely John Sircusa or Hanibal to tell me technically). So, how closely related are the G5 and the 970 or is it possible that EWeek (good rumor record) was right in IBM fabbing for Apple, but just the wrong chip?
Given Safari, Keynote and the new laptops which caught the rumor sites and eweek by surprise, we could all be totally missing something.
Oh well, let the fun begin. :cool:
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</p>
Now some of you might laugh at me, but honestly the little details I've read about Eleven give me the impression we were getting the Uncanny X-men with Dark Phoenix to boot(the Wrecking Crew), but now we're getting X-Caliber after Kitty Pride died (nothing uncanny about them) and we're happy about it. [Just a little levity there.]
Anyway, I have been under the impression that Apple was responsible for it's R&D where it's chip design was concerned as long as it conformed to the Book E specification that the AIM alliance agreed upon. I read this about the time one of the rumor sites alleged that Apple had hired it's own microprocessor team. Concurrently, there was much speculation about a clause that Apple could buy Motorola's fabs for 500 million or something. I could be wrong, so that's why I am asking?
However, if this assumption is correct, then I'd like to know what would stop Apple from taking the specs. for the G5 to IBM and asking them to produce it for them. Or, if Apple didn't design the G5 and Moto did but didn't want to build it for the reasons mentioned in Architosh, is it possible for Apple to buy the designs or license them and have IBM produce the chip for them. Maybe IBM and Apple could have licensed them jointly. IBM had noted that this year they would be adding to the companies they were fabbing processors for.
Like I said, I could be completely wrong, but is any of this possible?
If memory serves, wasn't the G5 also a 32 and 64 bit mode chip? Could it be that when Moto and Apple set out to design the G5 that maybe they began somewhere in the neigborhood of the Power4? I mean how much difference is there really between the G3s of IBM and Moto. From what I understand, there really isn't much difference between the G4 and the G3s (though I really need the great guys over at Arstechnica.Com; namely John Sircusa or Hanibal to tell me technically). So, how closely related are the G5 and the 970 or is it possible that EWeek (good rumor record) was right in IBM fabbing for Apple, but just the wrong chip?
Given Safari, Keynote and the new laptops which caught the rumor sites and eweek by surprise, we could all be totally missing something.
Oh well, let the fun begin. :cool:
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</p>
Comments
Motorola did loose the market, quite normal after having ****ed for the last three years.
IBM has a bigger market for the 970 than mot can have with a G5.
The 970 is based upon the power4 like a celeron is based upon a pentium : it means it does not require a lot of R&D (excepted the altivec unit, which now is done). The 970 will be used by both IBM and Apple, and it's a desktop or low server chip, at the difference of Motorola who was producing Embedded chip (the G4 is a high end embedded chip : see the MOT site).
IBM has plans to develop next generation of chips , like the power 5 who is in the way. The power 5 will be able to do multithreadings. This new technologie will be able some times after for the next generation of chips produced after the 970 : in short the new chip family of IBM has a future.
IBM put a lot of R&D in his power 5 family, with a large amount of R&D that can be used for the 970 family of chips.
concerning book E, i have see that the 970 is not book e compliant. If my memory is good, someone said in these boards (perhaps the Programmer) that altivec was not compatible with the book E architecture.
<strong>Concurrently, there was much speculation about a clause that Apple could buy Motorola's fabs for 500 million or something. I could be wrong, so that's why I am asking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just didn't happen. So far. Whether there were any negotiations or not, we'll never know for sure. Unless Apple buys Moto.
[quote]<strong>What would stop Apple from taking the specs. for the G5 to IBM and asking them to produce it for them. </strong><hr></blockquote>
For example, some critical design problems.
[quote]<strong>Is it possible for Apple to buy the designs or license them and have IBM produce the chip for them. Maybe IBM and Apple could have licensed them jointly. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This may have already happened, although very unlikely.
[quote]<strong>So, how closely related are the G5 and the 970?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple decides how to market PPC970 inside PowerMacs, i.e. how to call them. So they may be and may not be one and the same thing.
<strong>Concerning book E, i have see that the 970 is not book e compliant. If my memory is good, someone said in these boards (perhaps the Programmer) that altivec was not compatible with the book E architecture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does this mean for future chip designs? (Cant remember what Book E is..)
<strong>
What does this mean for future chip designs? (Cant remember what Book E is..)
Book E was a flexible design, a new core wich allow Buil to order design. With the book E architecture it's easy to add some specialised unit, for example a built in ethernet controller ...
Book E architecture is interesting in the embedded market, because it's allow the chip designer to suit the need of his customers ,at the cost of a minimum of R&D.
The problem is different for a desktop chip, where they ask the maximum of raw power for under 1000 $. The book e core is not more powerfull than an G4 core and far beyond a power 4 core.
In short book E architecture is the future of the embedded market, not the future of Apple
<strong>Yeah, 'loose' is what French women are. 'Lose' is what you do when you invest too much confidence in Motorola.
Thanks Tonton, the worse is that people already told me it was a mistake
Outsider : i don't find that french women are loose enough, at least for me ...
<strong>
Thanks Tonton, the worse is that people already told me it was a mistake
Outsider : i don't find that french women are loose enough, at least for me ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only experience I have with French women is what my brother told me when he went there.
<strong>
Thanks Tonton, the worse is that people already told me it was a mistake
Outsider : i don't find that french women are loose enough, at least for me ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's because of your glasses, fat hair and your bad breath, try to shower once a week and wash your hair, go see the dentist and brush your teeth once a day... and most important don't talk about computers and try not to be too eager...
<strong>
that's because of your glasses, fat hair and your bad breath, try to shower once a week and wash your hair, go see the dentist and brush your teeth once a day... and most important don't talk about computers and try not to be too eager...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true :
- i don't need glasses : i am blind
- don't have hair
- don't have teeth
- have weaks lungs and then a tiny breath
- just talking about poos
- i am living in a special bath to prevent sore scares
---->
I don't understand why with all this qualities
i have not more sucess with ladies.
<strong>
Anyway, I have been under the impression that Apple was responsible for it's R&D where it's chip design was concerned as long as it conformed to the Book E specification that the AIM alliance agreed upon. I read this about the time one of the rumor sites alleged that Apple had hired it's own microprocessor team. Concurrently, there was much speculation about a clause that Apple could buy Motorola's fabs for 500 million or something. I could be wrong, so that's why I am asking?
However, if this assumption is correct, then I'd like to know what would stop Apple from taking the specs. for the G5 to IBM and asking them to produce it for them. Or, if Apple didn't design the G5 and Moto did but didn't want to build it for the reasons mentioned in Architosh, is it possible for Apple to buy the designs or license them and have IBM produce the chip for them. Maybe IBM and Apple could have licensed them jointly. IBM had noted that this year they would be adding to the companies they were fabbing processors for.
Like I said, I could be completely wrong, but is any of this possible?
If memory serves, wasn't the G5 also a 32 and 64 bit mode chip? Could it be that when Moto and Apple set out to design the G5 that maybe they began somewhere in the neigborhood of the Power4? I mean how much difference is there really between the G3s of IBM and Moto. From what I understand, there really isn't much difference between the G4 and the G3s (though I really need the great guys over at Arstechnica.Com; namely John Sircusa or Hanibal to tell me technically). So, how closely related are the G5 and the 970 or is it possible that EWeek (good rumor record) was right in IBM fabbing for Apple, but just the wrong chip?
Given Safari, Keynote and the new laptops which caught the rumor sites and eweek by surprise, we could all be totally missing something.
Oh well, let the fun begin. :cool:
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No matter what happened to the moto G5 project, the 970 is an IBM chip. IBM anounced it at the Microprocessor Forum, something I doubt that Apple would have let them do if they were producing an Apple designed chip. Also IBM has stated that the 970 is based off of the Power 4 Core, which is an IBM design. There may be another chip out there that we dont know much about, like the G3 with AltiVec, but the 970 is all IBM, and we will see it in IBM products and I would imagine that IBM will try to get other developers to use it to build Linex boxes as well.
<strong>IBM anounced it at the Microprocessor Forum, something I doubt that Apple would have let them do if they were producing an Apple designed chip. ....., but the 970 is all IBM, and we will see it in IBM products and I would imagine that IBM will try to get other developers to use it to build Linex boxes as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you saying you don't think the 970 will be used by Apple?
I'm no history buff, maybe some one can recall if Motorola announced the G4 @ the Microprocessor Forum or elsewhere before Apple indicated they would use it? I don't think IBM's announcement @ the MPF is relevant.
<strong>
Are you saying you don't think the 970 will be used by Apple?
I'm no history buff, maybe some one can recall if Motorola announced the G4 @ the Microprocessor Forum or elsewhere before Apple indicated they would use it? I don't think IBM's announcement @ the MPF is relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After reading several times his quote, i think he said that IBM will have never announce a ship designed by Apple (and fab by IBM).
He said also that others customers will be free to use it. I think that Apple fit perfectly with this description.
Motorola did announce in his roadmap the 7457, it did not means that Apple won't use it. But in the past, they will have never made such an announcement before Apple. I think something has change in the relationship between Mot and Apple. However it's not a scoop ...
Apple designing chips is a myth, they never did it. They design their own chipset, it's enough work for them. In the past they also designed their bus (nubus) and their graphic chip. But this time is over, they develop their chipset, because nobody will do this at their place, but if IBM can give them a good chipset for the 970, i'll bet that they use it.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
IBM doesn't need to rely on Motorola's design efforts, they have a perfectly (perhaps more) capable design team of their own. The G5 was rumoured and while I'm sure it existed in some form I would take any rumours about it with a grain of salt. The 970 is an announced product and every indication is that Apple will be shipping machines using it this year. There are new rumours floating about of Apple having something special up their sleeve related to the 970 but I haven't yet seen anything too plausible, aside from the simple likelyhood of them using the 970 at all.
Processor design is simply too expensive for Apple to get into it... they might struggle along for a year or two, but their effort would be pretty much doomed to failure (i.e. they'd run out of money or be unable to keep up with Intel).</strong>
Are you really sure about that Programmer? Processor design is eminently affordable for Apple. Processor manufacturing is not.
As a real world example, just look at Transmeta, a 300 employee $150 million/year company just produced their second generation 8-issue wide VLIW processor. Or SGI with their MIPS chips and proprietary core logic chipsets. Or even AMD itself, which is about the same size or smaller than Apple. And they have fabs to maintain.
Apple can get into processor design if they wanted to. They would have to if they want to keep their market share or improve upon it. Whether their chip designs will be able to compete is more a measure of their design talent than the amount of money funding available.
As for Motorola, I'd just give up on them now. I gave up them a long long time ago. They are turning themselves into a communications company, and they don't have the funding to move to next generation fabs and must rely on others. Their semiconductor business will be in a continuous state of trouble for the foreseeable future because of this.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
<strong>
Are you saying you don't think the 970 will be used by Apple?
I'm no history buff, maybe some one can recall if Motorola announced the G4 @ the Microprocessor Forum or elsewhere before Apple indicated they would use it? I don't think IBM's announcement @ the MPF is relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was trying to say that if Apple designed the chip, and contracted IBM to fabricate the chip, the Apple would have had control of any anouncements made about the chip. Given Apples secrecy I dont think that they would have allowed IBM to make the anouncement of an Apple designed chip at the microprocessor forum. Also, if I recall, IBM clearly stated that the 970 is based of of the Power 4, which is an IBM chip that neither Apple or Motorolla has the rights to, so clearly the 970 is an IBM chip. Apple probably made some sugestions which influenced the design, and may have helped in other ways along the way, but it is not the "rebirth" of the fabeled Motorolla/Apple G5 processor.
[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
Why would we have any interest in a CPU designed and manufactured by Motorola? Do we have any desire to have an other experience with a CPU that is stuck at a xMHz wall for more than a year like the G4 :eek:
Or is it to get into trouble and be saved by IBM manufacturing like the G3 and the 604E.
It seems like Motorola had a prototype CPU more than a year ago that was faster than the Intel offering. How intriguing that may be it really is irrelevant if they can /will not manufacture the CPU.
Being a scientist myself I have seen a lot of things that only work in a lab and never will take of in mass production. Look at Intel. If I recall correctly Intel was to replace the aging Pentium CPU by Itanium in 1997. Now six years later the Pentium x86 is still around but instead of 200 MHz it runns at 3060 MHz and has hyperthreading and all kind of fancy footwork around the bus and memory. It might be a very old and clumsy CPU design but by very skilled manufacture they have been able to extend its usefullness way longer than any expected.
So kudos to Intel! It might be heratic for a Mac user to hail Intel but it is not Intels fault that Motorola has trouble.
<strong>I was trying to say that if Apple designed the chip, and contracted IBM to fabricate the chip, the Apple would have had control of any anouncements made about the chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh. Thanks for the response.
Off topic now, but wasn't the MPC7400 announced @ the Micropocessor Forum, in advance of Apple announcing they were going to use it??