Naked Mole Rat is rambling on about a G3 named MohaveMP. Is MP multiprocessor? The things supposed to positively sip power. If Big Blue can glue an Altivec on a 970, can it put a SMD on a G3 that runs fast, short pipeline, and cool?
Heat. Isn't the 12" PB almost setting fire as it is?
A G3 built by IBM might eventually outperform the G4. If this new G3 can multi-proc, and if you can stick an SMD on it, I'd almost rather have a dual G3 than a G4 so that I can multitask more effectively.
It's just a thought wandering around my head. Who knows what Steve-o's thinking?
Man is this thread full of shit. Heat, NOT an issue. Neither is the fan or battery life.
As for performance, any self respecting mac user knows that benches mean nothing. TIMED TESTS are the only things that count.
See this thread <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002176"; target="_blank">HERE</a>. The G3 gets it's ass handed to it in photoshop, iTunes, iMovie to the tune of 3X, 2.5X and 2X faster than the iBook. In fact the 867Mhz 12" PB stay within 5-10% of the L3 bolstered Ti867 on most tasks. So think about the 200-300% advantage when you think that the iBook is in any significant task at all faster than any current PB. It's cheaper for a reason.
I don't understand your fascination with a CPU that will soon be retired. 7457 is most certainly a better bet than IBM's G3's unless those G3's get a better bus and altivec. 200Mhz 60x vs. 167Mhz MPX seems to most people who understan this stuff to be a toss up, ask one of them.
The future of Apple looks like this, 970's and .13u G4's, G3 will die, unless IBM beefs it up to become in essence a G4 (ie with altivec and better FP performance.
<strong>Heat. Isn't the 12" PB almost setting fire as it is?
A G3 built by IBM might eventually outperform the G4. If this new G3 can multi-proc, and if you can stick an SMD on it, I'd almost rather have a dual G3 than a G4 so that I can multitask more effectively.
It's just a thought wandering around my head. Who knows what Steve-o's thinking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
OMG yet another G3 Dillusion thread.
The G3 as it stand TODAY is an inferior chip to the G4.
The IBM G3 that everyone loves to talk about but not a fecking soul has actually seen in a product is somehow better than the 130nm G4's. I'm sorry but "I'd rather have a dollar everyday than 10 now and then"
Again the G3 needs to die and go bye bye. It's not going to beat a G4 without large modifications. Even after those mods...what would IBM have to look forward to. Oooohhh iBooks. Not a very promising payback for the work involved IMO.
[quote]G3 will die, unless IBM beefs it up to become in essence a G4 (ie with altivec and better FP performance.<hr></blockquote>
Which is exactly what I said in the first message in this thread. Let me guess, you didn't actually read it.
[quote]The IBM G3 that everyone loves to talk about but not a fecking soul has actually seen in a product is somehow better than the 130nm G4's. I'm sorry but "I'd rather have a dollar everyday than 10 now and then"[quote]
Well, we're betting that the PPC 970 that no one has seen in a product is better than the 'tried and true' G4s. Is that delusional as well? Shall I rush out and buy a 1.42 dualie (oh wait, they're not even shipping yet) even though I know the G4 is at the end of its life cycle in the Power Macs and the 970 or some better chip is due out this year? Cause ya know, one dollar everyday is better than 10 dollars every Tuesday..or whatever you said.
I'm just trying to figure out what the heck IBM is producing this chip for, if it exists. SJ said this was the 'year of the laptop'. The 17" PB came at the BEGINNING of the 'year of the laptop', so what's going to top it? Dual processor laptops would be about the most innovative thing I can imagine Apple doing with it's laptop line, and it would also take advantage of the dual-processor power of OS X.
An G3-like chip with full SMP-capabilities, a SIMD-unit, and perhaps even full DDR-support will be a G4-chip. It won't be a 74xx-chip, but it'll be a chip of the forth generation PowerPCs. IBM can call it whatever they please, but if you intend to follow the way previous chips have been labled, the new chip will be a G4-chip. Just like the 970 will be a PowerPC-chip of the fifth generation.
Except..doesn't Moto make the 7475? That in itself is a reason to not follow that path.
The G3 iBook is smoking the 12" PB in some of the benchmarks and that just shouldn't be happening. Maybe IBM's got more up its sleeves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess I didn't actualy read this nonsensical quip against mot. The iBook G3 isn't "smoking" the 12" PB in anything. In fact it gets "smoked" quite thoroughly by the smallest PB.
Remember, untill the day IBM actually puts a PPC970 on your desk, Mot has provided whatever amount of performance Macs still have. Imagine current clock speeds (lower actually) and NO altivec, that's what an all IBM mac line-up would have looked like. Incompetence or indifference makes no difference. Whatever the reasons, Moto has clearly contributed much more than IBM has over the last 4 years.
Yes IBM may have 32 and 64 bit PPC's in mind, but the current G3 is an old dog, for it to be worthwhile IBM would have to turn it into a G4. We agree on that then? If so, that still doesn't invalidate Motorola.
Think, now IBM is slowly adding SIMD to all its future PPC and Power chips. Hmmm... I guess Moto and Apple were right about the value of SIMD. I guess IBM isn't perfect.
I would worry intensely about an all IBM line-up. They grew disinterested once, and may yet do so again a few years from now. They're still selling 604e based systems at prices that make macs seem bargain basement. Think about it, hard. Two CPU suppliers are not a bad thing. Moto won't be suffering forever. IBM won't hit homeruns forever. Choice is good, I heard that somewhere...
"Whatever the reasons, Moto has clearly contributed much more than IBM has over the last 4 years."
The reason is that Apple can't use and doesn't want G3 chips with higher clock rates than the anemic G4...so there was no incentive for IBM to push development, especially if all it gets for its pains is iBooks and (for a time) iMacs.
Why in hell would Apple not use dual G4's, not to mention the fact that a G3 MP setup, if achieved, would be inefficient. The G3 is dead. Lets admit that fact.
i woudl think if IBM could easily create a MP G3 that it would be very fast (not dual G4, but fast and use less power). That would mean apple would have hell explaining not dual 970's int he PB or have to put dual inthe 970.
i would rather have two dual 600 G3's then 1.2GHz G3 probably...mmm maybe not who knows....i just want a 970
[quote]Think, now IBM is slowly adding SIMD to all its future PPC and Power chips. Hmmm... I guess Moto and Apple were right about the value of SIMD. I guess IBM isn't perfect.<hr></blockquote>
IBM is adding SIMD because Apple now NEEDS it and has invested a lot of time into SIMD applications. It would be a total embarrassment for Apple to suddenly 'forget' the Altivec Marketing Engine. I may be mistaken, but I don't think IBM is adding SIMD to its Power5, just to the 9X0 derivitive that will come out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Apple needs the 970 a hell of a lot more than IBM needs Apple. Wanna know why that is? Moto-f***ing-rola, that's why!
The cool thing is that Apple got its new OS running so that it takes advantages of dual processors, a configuration that it NEVER would have resorted to were it not for the lame G4 roadmap (they had a roadmap??). That and a 64-bit capable OS X are some mighty big advantages in the years ahead, provided someone can finally reliably provide them with scalable chip designs.
"Year of the Laptop" means its gonna take a year to get those damn lapzilla's they have been yelling about. I want one but hell by the time they come out..... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
IBM is adding SIMD because Apple now NEEDS it and has invested a lot of time into SIMD applications. It would be a total embarrassment for Apple to suddenly 'forget' the Altivec Marketing Engine. I may be mistaken, but I don't think IBM is adding SIMD to its Power5, just to the 9X0 derivitive that will come out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Apple needs the 970 a hell of a lot more than IBM needs Apple. Wanna know why that is? Moto-f***ing-rola, that's why!
The cool thing is that Apple got its new OS running so that it takes advantages of dual processors, a configuration that it NEVER would have resorted to were it not for the lame G4 roadmap (they had a roadmap??). That and a 64-bit capable OS X are some mighty big advantages in the years ahead, provided someone can finally reliably provide them with scalable chip designs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh god, more crap. Excuse me, this is nothing personal against you, just the whole IBm as savior crowd. Be weary, IBM has been disinterested in the past and the CAN afford to be disinterested again. 970 may repair past injuries, but IBM has been as much of a drag on PPC development as moto.
Let me get into the contradictions inherent in your very posts.
Apple NEEDS IBM more than IBM needs Apple. Yep. Absolutely true. You have to think then that if IBM doesn't need Apple, and the SIMD-less route is truly superior, why the heck are they building an altivec chip "just for Apple." Translation, THEY AREN'T! They're builing because after 4 years they could no longer ignore the unmistakeable advantages of the design. IBM dropped the ball 4 years ago, they were wrong. They would need roughly 2.5-3Ghz G3's to compete with the fastest G4's and they aren't anywhere near delivering chips of that speed, and NEVER were.
So now that the 970 is set to debut in rougly a 1.2-2ghz range the whole philosophy of rabidly clocked G3/PPC seems to have flown out the window. Mebbe doing more work with less clocks is a good idea if you want to keep temps low and cram a lot of chips into one box, ya think?
What all this obviously means is that IBM has itself recognized the value of SIMD (and look they're talking about HT too) not because "Apple needs it" but because it's a damn good idea. IBM may have been disinterested, but they also made a major miscalculation in terms of design philosophy. They were wrong, and everybody paid. Imagine if we were using 2-3Ghz G3's right now and Apple desktops were still getting spanked only now the laptops were hot bulky and slow too? Yep IBM. Shoulda, coulda, wouldas are fine and all, but think about what the evidence suggests before you automaticallyassume the other path would have been better. Apple made the best choice between the wrong direction and a partner who knew the right direction but couldn't execute.
If everyone (IBM) had also agreed to use SIMD, everything would be coded for it, IBM would have had 4 years of experience with it and a lot more would have been learned about it.
As much as we can blame Moto for production inadequacies, you can do naught but lay huge blame at the feet of IBM for the current state of the PPC.
They will redeem themselves with the 970 (we hope)
Check out Stevo's new lean, mean, dual processor grillin' machine! You can cook your veggieburgers and the grooves in the heatsink allow you to drain the nutrients into a new bio-electric battery cell that lights up your keyboard and sucks your dick at the same time! It's the latest great invention smuggled from beyond the reality distortion field and it's so good Steve put his name on it!
Comments
<strong>... SIMD on a G3 that runs fast, short pipeline, and cool?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's called the 7457.
Except..doesn't Moto make the 7475? That in itself is a reason to not follow that path.
The G3 iBook is smoking the 12" PB in some of the benchmarks and that just shouldn't be happening. Maybe IBM's got more up its sleeves.
<strong>Block this thread! The G3 cannot be used in multi processor systems. Wouldn't a dual G4 make way more sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, yes it would, more sense as a grill master 5000!
HAHAHAHAHAHHA <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
A G3 built by IBM might eventually outperform the G4. If this new G3 can multi-proc, and if you can stick an SMD on it, I'd almost rather have a dual G3 than a G4 so that I can multitask more effectively.
It's just a thought wandering around my head. Who knows what Steve-o's thinking?
As for performance, any self respecting mac user knows that benches mean nothing. TIMED TESTS are the only things that count.
See this thread <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002176"; target="_blank">HERE</a>. The G3 gets it's ass handed to it in photoshop, iTunes, iMovie to the tune of 3X, 2.5X and 2X faster than the iBook. In fact the 867Mhz 12" PB stay within 5-10% of the L3 bolstered Ti867 on most tasks. So think about the 200-300% advantage when you think that the iBook is in any significant task at all faster than any current PB. It's cheaper for a reason.
I don't understand your fascination with a CPU that will soon be retired. 7457 is most certainly a better bet than IBM's G3's unless those G3's get a better bus and altivec. 200Mhz 60x vs. 167Mhz MPX seems to most people who understan this stuff to be a toss up, ask one of them.
The future of Apple looks like this, 970's and .13u G4's, G3 will die, unless IBM beefs it up to become in essence a G4 (ie with altivec and better FP performance.
<strong>Man is this thread full of shit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that about sums up the thread! LMAO
<strong>Heat. Isn't the 12" PB almost setting fire as it is?
A G3 built by IBM might eventually outperform the G4. If this new G3 can multi-proc, and if you can stick an SMD on it, I'd almost rather have a dual G3 than a G4 so that I can multitask more effectively.
It's just a thought wandering around my head. Who knows what Steve-o's thinking?</strong><hr></blockquote>
OMG yet another G3 Dillusion thread.
The G3 as it stand TODAY is an inferior chip to the G4.
The IBM G3 that everyone loves to talk about but not a fecking soul has actually seen in a product is somehow better than the 130nm G4's. I'm sorry but "I'd rather have a dollar everyday than 10 now and then"
Again the G3 needs to die and go bye bye. It's not going to beat a G4 without large modifications. Even after those mods...what would IBM have to look forward to. Oooohhh iBooks. Not a very promising payback for the work involved IMO.
Which is exactly what I said in the first message in this thread. Let me guess, you didn't actually read it.
[quote]The IBM G3 that everyone loves to talk about but not a fecking soul has actually seen in a product is somehow better than the 130nm G4's. I'm sorry but "I'd rather have a dollar everyday than 10 now and then"[quote]
Well, we're betting that the PPC 970 that no one has seen in a product is better than the 'tried and true' G4s. Is that delusional as well? Shall I rush out and buy a 1.42 dualie (oh wait, they're not even shipping yet) even though I know the G4 is at the end of its life cycle in the Power Macs and the 970 or some better chip is due out this year? Cause ya know, one dollar everyday is better than 10 dollars every Tuesday..or whatever you said.
I'm just trying to figure out what the heck IBM is producing this chip for, if it exists. SJ said this was the 'year of the laptop'. The 17" PB came at the BEGINNING of the 'year of the laptop', so what's going to top it? Dual processor laptops would be about the most innovative thing I can imagine Apple doing with it's laptop line, and it would also take advantage of the dual-processor power of OS X.
<strong>Riiiiight...
Except..doesn't Moto make the 7475? That in itself is a reason to not follow that path.
The G3 iBook is smoking the 12" PB in some of the benchmarks and that just shouldn't be happening. Maybe IBM's got more up its sleeves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess I didn't actualy read this nonsensical quip against mot. The iBook G3 isn't "smoking" the 12" PB in anything. In fact it gets "smoked" quite thoroughly by the smallest PB.
Remember, untill the day IBM actually puts a PPC970 on your desk, Mot has provided whatever amount of performance Macs still have. Imagine current clock speeds (lower actually) and NO altivec, that's what an all IBM mac line-up would have looked like. Incompetence or indifference makes no difference. Whatever the reasons, Moto has clearly contributed much more than IBM has over the last 4 years.
Yes IBM may have 32 and 64 bit PPC's in mind, but the current G3 is an old dog, for it to be worthwhile IBM would have to turn it into a G4. We agree on that then? If so, that still doesn't invalidate Motorola.
Think, now IBM is slowly adding SIMD to all its future PPC and Power chips. Hmmm... I guess Moto and Apple were right about the value of SIMD. I guess IBM isn't perfect.
I would worry intensely about an all IBM line-up. They grew disinterested once, and may yet do so again a few years from now. They're still selling 604e based systems at prices that make macs seem bargain basement. Think about it, hard. Two CPU suppliers are not a bad thing. Moto won't be suffering forever. IBM won't hit homeruns forever. Choice is good, I heard that somewhere...
The reason is that Apple can't use and doesn't want G3 chips with higher clock rates than the anemic G4...so there was no incentive for IBM to push development, especially if all it gets for its pains is iBooks and (for a time) iMacs.
i would rather have two dual 600 G3's then 1.2GHz G3 probably...mmm maybe not who knows....i just want a 970
IBM is adding SIMD because Apple now NEEDS it and has invested a lot of time into SIMD applications. It would be a total embarrassment for Apple to suddenly 'forget' the Altivec Marketing Engine. I may be mistaken, but I don't think IBM is adding SIMD to its Power5, just to the 9X0 derivitive that will come out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Apple needs the 970 a hell of a lot more than IBM needs Apple. Wanna know why that is? Moto-f***ing-rola, that's why!
The cool thing is that Apple got its new OS running so that it takes advantages of dual processors, a configuration that it NEVER would have resorted to were it not for the lame G4 roadmap (they had a roadmap??). That and a 64-bit capable OS X are some mighty big advantages in the years ahead, provided someone can finally reliably provide them with scalable chip designs.
Dual G4s even seem like a stretch, but not as much as dual G3s.
As for dual 970s, let's get a 970 Workstation out before we start talking about 2 970s in a PowerBook.
<strong>
IBM is adding SIMD because Apple now NEEDS it and has invested a lot of time into SIMD applications. It would be a total embarrassment for Apple to suddenly 'forget' the Altivec Marketing Engine. I may be mistaken, but I don't think IBM is adding SIMD to its Power5, just to the 9X0 derivitive that will come out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Apple needs the 970 a hell of a lot more than IBM needs Apple. Wanna know why that is? Moto-f***ing-rola, that's why!
The cool thing is that Apple got its new OS running so that it takes advantages of dual processors, a configuration that it NEVER would have resorted to were it not for the lame G4 roadmap (they had a roadmap??). That and a 64-bit capable OS X are some mighty big advantages in the years ahead, provided someone can finally reliably provide them with scalable chip designs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh god, more crap. Excuse me, this is nothing personal against you, just the whole IBm as savior crowd. Be weary, IBM has been disinterested in the past and the CAN afford to be disinterested again. 970 may repair past injuries, but IBM has been as much of a drag on PPC development as moto.
Let me get into the contradictions inherent in your very posts.
Apple NEEDS IBM more than IBM needs Apple. Yep. Absolutely true. You have to think then that if IBM doesn't need Apple, and the SIMD-less route is truly superior, why the heck are they building an altivec chip "just for Apple." Translation, THEY AREN'T! They're builing because after 4 years they could no longer ignore the unmistakeable advantages of the design. IBM dropped the ball 4 years ago, they were wrong. They would need roughly 2.5-3Ghz G3's to compete with the fastest G4's and they aren't anywhere near delivering chips of that speed, and NEVER were.
So now that the 970 is set to debut in rougly a 1.2-2ghz range the whole philosophy of rabidly clocked G3/PPC seems to have flown out the window. Mebbe doing more work with less clocks is a good idea if you want to keep temps low and cram a lot of chips into one box, ya think?
What all this obviously means is that IBM has itself recognized the value of SIMD (and look they're talking about HT too) not because "Apple needs it" but because it's a damn good idea. IBM may have been disinterested, but they also made a major miscalculation in terms of design philosophy. They were wrong, and everybody paid. Imagine if we were using 2-3Ghz G3's right now and Apple desktops were still getting spanked only now the laptops were hot bulky and slow too? Yep IBM. Shoulda, coulda, wouldas are fine and all, but think about what the evidence suggests before you automaticallyassume the other path would have been better. Apple made the best choice between the wrong direction and a partner who knew the right direction but couldn't execute.
If everyone (IBM) had also agreed to use SIMD, everything would be coded for it, IBM would have had 4 years of experience with it and a lot more would have been learned about it.
As much as we can blame Moto for production inadequacies, you can do naught but lay huge blame at the feet of IBM for the current state of the PPC.
They will redeem themselves with the 970 (we hope)
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
No.
Long answer:
Current G3s don't do MP.
Silly answer:
Check out Stevo's new lean, mean, dual processor grillin' machine! You can cook your veggieburgers and the grooves in the heatsink allow you to drain the nutrients into a new bio-electric battery cell that lights up your keyboard and sucks your dick at the same time! It's the latest great invention smuggled from beyond the reality distortion field and it's so good Steve put his name on it!