Intel's 64bit 4GHz Quad processor vs. IBM future CPU in Mac's.

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Well this is what intel is up to watch the video it's interesting



It seems they (intel) have monster servers coming with Quad 64bit 4GHz Processors that are the next generation of Xeons with a new name, and all.



Quote:

Nocona chips for two-processor servers will arrive in the second quarter, Barrett said, followed quickly by Prescott processors with 32/64-bit capability for single-processor servers and workstations. Prescott and Nocona are functionally the same processor but differ in cache size and bus speed. The 32/64-bit technology will then come to chips for servers with four or more processors in 2005, Barrett added.



The most promising immediate IBM PPC rumors come from a french rumor site which say (in english)



Quote:

PPC 975 at APPLE - APPLE received on behalf of IBM of the first samples of preproduction's of PPC 975. The rates of successes are excellent with the pre-production. Almost all the processors reach 2.8 GHz and a very small quantity is assembled to 3.4 GHz!



With that been said there is also this which seems relative to this PPC version.



Quote:

Future innovations in Powermacs



APPLE tests in this moment of the charts videos to format NCV Express train from Nvidia. These tests are carried out on the mother charts of the Powermac futures designed to leave at the end the next summer.



These new mother charts which will leave in September will be to the standards Hyper-transport 2 (announced recently) and will have bus NCV Express train, the whole animated by a chip PPC 975.



And later down the road there is the next IBM PPC version (supposedly)



Quote:

VMX 2 - IBM must solidify the specifications of the VMX 2 (Altivec 2) at the end of the year.

It will be in 256 bits instead of 128 for the VMX. IBM thinks of being able to make it 2,5 to 3 times faster than the VMX. It will treat up to 12 instructions per cycle of clock.

It will be perfectly compatible with the VMX. The first CPU VMX 2 will be the PPC 976 Dual Core.



Battling the new intel processor configurations is going to be no easy task for IBM, and Apple especially.



I left out AMD, and they truly are Intel's direct competitor so If anyone want's to add some AMD info to this feel free.



This topic is intended for discussion of Future Apple Products in a common market with it's competitors. NOT AN INTEL, OR APPLE FLAME SESSION. Let's keep it under control.







link to the french rumor site: croquer
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 72
    Great...may the battle begin.
  • Reply 2 of 72
    I wouldn't be so worried about Intel. All signs point to a meltdown. They already have a 64-bit processor - the Itanic. Reports of their new processors to date haven't been very positive. If Intel can't get their act together, AMD has a real chance to gain significant market share.



    And, regarding bring 64-bit to the desktop (not servers), Intel has no immediate plans for this. They have said over and over that their 64-bit hardware for the desktop is tied to Longhorn (the next Windows). Longhorn will not ship until late 2005 at the earliest. Many people put the ship date of Longhorn out much farther than that.



    Meanwhile, Microsoft is hurting on multiple fronts. They cannot simply rush a Longhorn release this time. If they do and it's as full of security holes as their current products, they will take a major hit in the pocket book.



    However, both MS and Intel have more $$$ than most nations, so they might be able to buy their way out of their current mess.



    BTW, here's a couple of related links:



    http://www.arstechnica.com/etc/mac/index.html

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/35654.html
  • Reply 3 of 72
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    they have very immediate plans for 64bit desktop chips, just google up on the IDF announcements.
  • Reply 4 of 72
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    Battling the new Intel processor configurations is going to be no easy task for IBM, and Apple especially.





    Exactly. I see this more like competition than threat. Simply, Apple-IBM and AMD are not going to be the only players in the desktop 64-bit field. Such a pressure from Intel's side (and Microsoft's, to not forget 64-bit Windows) with IBM in the game, could lead to some interesting developments for the Mac, in 2 or 3 years from now. Most probably good, but bad ones are not excluded.
  • Reply 5 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by G-News

    they have very immediate plans for 64bit desktop chips, just google up on the IDF announcements.



    You don't suppose Intel is above a little FUD, do you?



    Speaking of the IDF, here's a quote from the link above:



    Quote:

    Describing the shift from the server environment to the mainstream client as a "big jump", Bill Siu, general manager of Intel's Desktop Platforms Group, admitted that the process of recompiling device drivers and the like for a 64-bit desktop PC would take "some time to complete".



    He said Intel expects to see a Windows OS delivering "comprehensive 64-bit support in the Longhorn timeframe".



    That puts the arrival of 64-bit addressing in the Pentium 4 sometime around 2006 - and possibly even as late as 2008, if you believe the prognostications of analysts like Gartner.



    That sure doesn't sound like "immediate" to me.



    We'll see....
  • Reply 6 of 72
    Isn´t power5 the competitor for this Intel chip?



    correct me if I am wrong



    maclogic
  • Reply 7 of 72
    ~ufo~~ufo~ Posts: 245member
    anyone have some links to previews of this longhorn thing ?



    what will they steal from osx this time ?
  • Reply 8 of 72
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Faeylyn

    You don't suppose Intel is above a little FUD, do you?



    Speaking of the IDF, here's a quote from the link above:







    That sure doesn't sound like "immediate" to me.



    We'll see....




    Put that down to very poor journalism then because Intel has confirmed 64 bit addressing is already in Prescott, awaiting a new socket, and that the first 90 nm produced Xeons will also have it.



    Intel doesn't however expect the software support to be there so soon but the hardware is done.
  • Reply 9 of 72
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ~ufo~



    what will they steal from osx this time ?




    Microsoft is going to implement some new (in the Windows world) technologies, like database-like file system and advanced graphics layer, something like Quartz and Quartz Extreme but, quite likely, fully hardware accelerated. I would not say "steal", since this is a rather general future trend in displaying graphics and content in computers. Simply, Apple was there a long time ago...



    Palladium is also expected to be integral part of Longhorn.
  • Reply 10 of 72
    ~ufo~~ufo~ Posts: 245member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Palladium is also expected to be integral part of Longhorn.



    what's that ?
  • Reply 11 of 72
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
  • Reply 12 of 72
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ~ufo~

    what's that ?



    Scary things...
  • Reply 13 of 72
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    Quote:

    admitted that the process of recompiling device drivers and the like for a 64-bit desktop PC would take "some time to complete".



    All that says is that Microsoft, not Intel, will have a hard time catching up. That does however not concern Intels 64bit strategy in the least. They will have a product that says "64bit" on the sticker out within half a year, at very high clockspeeds compared to Athlon 64, FX and Opteron and of course also the PPC 97x. That's what's going to count for the marketing, not whether 64bit actually makes any sense for the majority of the consumers, or not.



    Frankly, it makes very little sense for most people, regardless of the platform, as of now and the near future.
  • Reply 14 of 72
    ~ufo~~ufo~ Posts: 245member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    Scary things...



    thanks!



    scary indeed
  • Reply 15 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    Put that down to very poor journalism then because Intel has confirmed 64 bit addressing is already in Prescott, awaiting a new socket, and that the first 90 nm produced Xeons will also have it.



    Intel doesn't however expect the software support to be there so soon but the hardware is done.




    Intel's fortunes are, to a large extent, tied with Microsoft. Just because they have a chip doesn't mean it's going to appear in desktop PC's overnight. And the software support is sort of critical. Exactly how compatible is it with their old chips?



    And even if they?re able to ship in quantity today, what are they going to plug it into? It?s going to take a day or two for the whole package to appear. And device drivers aren?t Microsoft?s problem, they?re Intel?s. It?s kind of pointless having a PC without the ability to connect to anything, isn?t it?



    And what OS are they going to run? I can?t see many (any?) of the PC makers using this if it isn?t capable of running some flavor of Windows. So if Microsoft does need to make changes to their current OS, that brings Microsoft in the loop before this can become part of a real product.



    And if it?s going to run the current OS, then it?s going to get compared to the current CPUs. How well/fast will it run the current OS and current applications? How much does it cost vs. a current 3.4Ghz chip? Is the price/performance worth it?



    Basically this all adds up to Intel/MS being at least a year+ behind Apple in terms of delivering a 64-bit computer.
  • Reply 16 of 72
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    not really, no.

    remember, we're talking about 64bit EXTENDED Versions of already available and proven 32bit architectures.

    Compatibility won't be a problem here at all, unlike Itanium, but similar to the Athlon 64.



    Quote:

    Just because they have a chip doesn't mean it's going to appear in desktop PC's overnight.



    Wrong. Whenever they have something new to throw buzzwords at, they will do so, and there will be people who will buy into it. You should read the little essay over at mac.ars, regarding 64bit computing. "64bit" is the new MHz myth, and Intel has finally decided to join the game, even if they still think it's pointless. But as long as it sells, who care's if it's obsolete? Intel certainly doesn't. They're whole CPU history is largely built on "buzzwords".



    Quote:

    And the software support is sort of critical. Exactly how compatible is it with their old chips?



    How critical? Do you see any 64bit drivers for G5 machines? Any 64bit enabled applications? Even Panther itself isn't capable of adressing more than 32bit of memory to a single task. Exactly who cares in the consumer market?

    "I have a dual 2GHz, 64bit G5 PowerMac, the fastest desktop in the world". That's how these things work.



    AMD has shown an impressive record of understanding the workings of the CPU market: They started using their alternative numbering scheme for the Athlon XP, which has worked very well. (How many people do you think actually know that the Athlon XP 3000+ actually runs at ~2/3 that implied speed? And who cares, really?) Now they understand that "64" is the new word of magic, claiming it's the ultimate for gaming. In fact the only benefits games see so far from the 64 and FX Athlons are improvements made elsewhere. Who cares there?



    This is all marketing, and has nothing to do with "better", "required" or "usable".
  • Reply 17 of 72
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    I have to wonder where people get this idea from. Maybe I've been around to long but this is just a repeat of near sightedness that appears all to foten in the industry.



    In the past we have had people claim that here was no need for more than 640K of memory. We have had people claim that 16 bit processing all one needs for the desktop. We have had people claim that a FP math processor is only an option for special applications.



    All of these calims and many more have been made in the past and quickly shown to be garbage. So to will this artificial impediment to the uptake of 64 bit processing be shown to be nothing but garbage.



    Addressable memory is fundamental to being able to affer new and unique capabilities to computing hardware and software. With out a growth in address space the industry will stagnate. 64 bit is as important to computing today as was the processor with the first integrated FP unit, as was the first processor with vector capability and was the the ability to address more that 640K of ram.



    Sure the current users may wonder what would anybody need that for. Lets be honest though how many Lotus123 users do you see these days. Those that don't get on the technology band wagon early end up stuck in a hay field somewhere wondering why no body is using their software any more.



    Dave



    Quote:

    Originally posted by G-News





    Frankly, it makes very little sense for most people, regardless of the platform, as of now and the near future.




  • Reply 18 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    This topic is intended for discussion of Future Apple Products in a common market with it's competitors. NOT AN INTEL, OR APPLE FLAME SESSION. Let's keep it under control.



    Should be posted in top of every forum. ThxX.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by maclogic

    Isn´t power5 the competitor for this Intel chip?



    correct me if I am wrong



    maclogic




    Oh no, the Power5 is IBM's specialised server chip! The PowerPC 975 is supposed to be a Power5 light version...
  • Reply 19 of 72
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    64 bits should be look upon for what it is, it is the natural evolution of the microprocessor. Just as the "improvements made elsewhere" are an evolution of the processor, to extend its capabilities, so is 64 bits.



    What I find perplexing is that we did not see such negativity when the industry changed form 16 bit to 32 bit hardware. I do have to wonder why there is such a huge resistance to accepting that 64 bit technology is the next logical step forward.



    64 bit technology offers us several advantages, one of the most out standing advanatge is the increase in adressable range of memory. This is and advantage to the user with real RAM or virtual addressing. It enables a whole class of applications that don't easily map onto current hardware.



    Beyond that a 64 bit machine offers several other advanatges when it comes to 64 bitness. These would be in the area of ALU capabilities such as 64 bit math ops, increased abilities with bit maps and other logical operations. While these operations don't enable applications in the way that an extended address space may, they do make such operations much faster.



    So yeah those benefits to the current crop of games is limited to a few areas not directly related to the 64 bitness of the processor. One can only imagine what the games of tommorrow will be like with 4 or more times the real memnory available to them and a vastly larger virtual address range.



    By the way I'm willing to bet that some of the new advantages that AMD's 64 bit CPU sees with games are related to the 64 bitness of the processor. Just having wider data paths and other optimizations in the chip to implement 64 bit operations allows data to flow faster. Software may not be using 64 bit features but that doesn't mean that the addition of such features to a processor doesn't help the data through put.



    Dave







    Quote:

    Originally posted by G-News

    Now they understand that "64" is the new word of magic, claiming it's the ultimate for gaming. In fact the only benefits games see so far from the 64 and FX Athlons are improvements made elsewhere. Who cares there?



    This is all marketing, and has nothing to do with "better", "required" or "usable".




  • Reply 20 of 72
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    SAN FRANCISCO--Smarting from criticism from open-source programmers, Intel has committed to release Linux versions of essential supporting software at about the same time it releases Windows versions.



    Don't forget about Linux. Everybody seems to be noting, and expecting windows to be what these processors will rely on, but with the Quad processor systems coming which should/could/would be aimed at the high end 3D workstation market; coupled with the fact that Linux has already become a much more accepted OS in the 3D realm than it was in the past. Do any of you think Apple, and IBM would need to counter with a Quad processor workstation probably available as a BTO? Before you get ahead of denying Apples interest (or lack there of) in 3D. We do know Pixar is planing (and is probably finished) to bring RenderMan Server to OS X. Which says something of interest by Steve Job's I think anyway. Wouldn't Apple need a 4 way processor system to compete with these Intel workstation/servers?





    Intel to speed lagging Linux support link
Sign In or Register to comment.