AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple's G5 come from IBM? - Page 30

post #1161 of 1258
Going forward I think we'll see more and more multi-way chips -- this is described in a paper by an engineer at IBM as the "cellular approach". A single chip with 16 or 32 cores on it is not unreasonable when we can put a billion transistors on a die. At that point chips will probably be sold based on what clock rate they perform at (just like today) and how many working processors they have. IBM has already started this by using defective duals as singles.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #1162 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

Yep... I too noticed that. I filed it in the same circular bin as I did the comment from Ryan @ MOSR about the GPUL code name being made up by rumor-mongers.

Next week will tell the tale... I for one can't wait.

For those who think that MOT is gonna have one last 'bang' before the GPUL it sure seems strange that we haven't seen any (interesting) leaks about it. You'd think with all the 'chatter' about GPUL someone would leak even a little info just so people would start speculating about MOTs offering as well (just to help defuse the GPUL-lust we have now) otherwise many might just look at any MOT update as a 'last who-rah' (can anyone say B&W G3 or Yikes) before the GPUL boxes come out and pass on buying them.

Now all that goes out the window if the next offering from MOT can 'run in the same pack' as a GPUL but if that's that case then why would Apple move to the GPUL in the first place and I for one really think Apple will...

Dave

[ 10-10-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've mentioned my info a few times. A G4++ of sorts with new mobo, faster FSB and DDR in Jan. The mobo has been having major heat issues which may explain the vents on the current towers. I would guess up to around 1.4ghz. The GPUL is set for fall release.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #1163 of 1258
okay, did i miss something massively important? last i looked, this thread was a handful of pages. now, unless i am mistaken, it's the longest thread E-V-E-R. (i'd bet it's even longer than the pre-macworld-sanfrancisco thread earlier this year, and that's goin' some...)
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #1164 of 1258
No...Whatcha listening to? thread and some other thread in FH beat it by quite a bit...1400 and 1700ish respectively.

It has a while to go before it reaches all-time-high status. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[EDIT: It was the <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000401" target="_blank">Apple Hypes MWSF 2002</a> thread, at 1757 posts, started and ended by Fran.]

[ 10-10-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
post #1165 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>No...Whatcha listening to? thread and some other thread in FH beat it by quite a bit...1400 and 1700ish respectively.

It has a while to go before it reaches all-time-high status. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[EDIT: It was the <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000401" target="_blank">Apple Hypes MWSF 2002</a> thread, at 1757 posts, started and ended by Fran.]

[ 10-10-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

sigh, how quickly i forgot.... FOURTY-FOUR PAGES?!?! damn, apple had us all by the unmentionables, huh?

damn. how many days until MWSF???
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #1166 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>

sigh, how quickly i forgot.... FOURTY-FOUR PAGES?!?! damn, apple had us all by the unmentionables, huh?

damn. how many days until MWSF???</strong><hr></blockquote>

44 pages and all of it (well 99.99% of it) was posted from Dec 31st and Jan 7th. Talk about a web-board stress test.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #1167 of 1258
Gee I wonder how threads get so long. I am sure it is because there are a lot of people with interesting input about the subject that is stated in the thread name. I am sure it wouldn't include pages of people commenting on such off the subject things like "Oh my god this is a long thread."

You know what my big prediction is, that the mods will wisen up and lock this monster.
post #1168 of 1258
Why? Actually, we won't really know until next fall and Moto's releasing it's G4++ in Jan. So actaully, we have almost 11 more months to go with this subject before we get an answer.

So why should it be locked? This thread is about the future of Apple and it's major hardware.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #1169 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>Just to add a few things the next PIV produced on the 0.09µm process is around 100 million transistors. Is it possible what they will do is start with a single core on a 0.13µm process then switch across?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

could it be possible that the new IBM Desktop Power4 will be produced at 0.09µm ? i remember there was some rumor about IBM to open a new fab where chips shall be produced at 0.09µm....
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #1170 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>

could it be possible that the new IBM Desktop Power4 will be produced at 0.09µm ? i remember there was some rumor about IBM to open a new fab where chips shall be produced at 0.09µm....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Amorph already reply to this question one page above : speaking of Fishkill the fab will start at 0,13 before migrating to 0,09 some months later.
post #1171 of 1258
Hmmm. I wonder. Will the GPUL start at 2 gig on .13 or .9?

If it starts at 2 gig on .13.

...then .9 GPUL is going to be frightening.

It seems that this processor will have much more headroom mhz and performance wise than the shorter pipelined chips of recent PPC years.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...

Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...

Reply
post #1172 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>Amorph already reply to this question one page above : speaking of Fishkill the fab will start at 0,13 before migrating to 0,09 some months later.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The URL is <a href="http://news.com.com/2102-1001-947358.html" target="_blank">here</a> in case anyone hasn't read it. I commented several lines in another thread on AI <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002537&p=3" target="_blank">here</a> but for completeness:

IBM is manufacturing chips using the 130-nanometer process at the plant. The company plans to increase manufacturing quickly and reach full capacity early next year. It also plans a quick move to 90-nanometer production, which will reduce the size of the chips, allowing them to reach higher speeds and increase its manufacturing capacity yet again.

Early next year!
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #1173 of 1258
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> I have general question that pops in my head in regards to 64bit and OS X when I read the various articles about the new IBM PowerPC and its possible use by Apple.

Every article I read make it sound as though there is a ton of work to do in order to bring the Mac OS to full 64 bitness.

However, the G5 from Motorola was always suppose to have a 64bit version and in fact there was even some mention in the past that the G5 would be 64bit(with 32bit compatibility) only.

It's not as though IBM's offering of a 64bit PowerPC part is so outlandish that Apple would have to all of a sudden think about 64bit. The public have been hearing about a 64bit G5 for years.

It would seem to me that Apple would have something well along 64bit native.

This is of course unless the resources for such a thing would be too great to take away from debugging, optimizing and making the 32bit version useable as the mainstream Mac OS release.

Next, Inc. probably had a 64bit, no?


Any comments?

-tink

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #1174 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by tink:
<strong>Every article I read make it sound as though there is a ton of work to do in order to bring the Mac OS to full 64 bitness.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know where you've been reading, but I don't agree with it. MacOSX should port quite nicely to 64-bit, and I expect that they have been experimenting with it for quite some time on POWER4, POWER3 and PPC620 based machines. Possibly even IA-64 since Apple actually said they'd support that back when jumping on the IA-64 bandwagon was fashionable.

Certain APIs, especially in Carbon, might have a more difficult time going 64-bit but they don't have to go full 64-bit on day 1 since the hardware will fully support 32-bit mode. Cocoa is probably 64-bit already. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a staged roll-out of the 64-bit OS. It might even just start with the 32-bit OS knowing how to put the new chip into 32-bit mode and leave it there. The OS isn't likely to hold up the introduction of 64-bit capable hardware.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #1175 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>The OS isn't likely to hold up the introduction of 64-bit capable hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a good thing... Also from what I remember reading from you and others far more up on that side of things than me most applications will not see any real benefit from being on a 64-bit processor / OS either... Well yes they will have access to GOBS more memory space but it isn't gonna work magic (as I was once led to believe).

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #1176 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>Certain APIs, especially in Carbon, might have a more difficult time going 64-bit but they don't have to go full 64-bit on day 1 since the hardware will fully support 32-bit mode. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure most apps will _ever_ go fully 64 bit. It is clearly not an improvement for a large number of things, and there are a lot of things that are simply never going to need that much memory devoted to them. I mean, who hear thinks 'ls' or 'more' or _any_ of the command line tools will be faster in 64-bit mode? Hmm, perhaps some of the networking stuff.

Note I'm not saying nothing needs to address 64 bits of memory, I'm just saying that unlike 8 bit, and 16 bit, there's a LOT that can be done in 32bit apps before forcing everyone up to 64 bit minimums.

In any case, I would think in the end there will be an API 'make a 32bit aware thread' and an API 'make a 64bit aware thread' where the programmer gets to use the right tool for the job with things coexisting relatively peacefully.

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Nevyn ]</p>
post #1177 of 1258
This might help with the 'gpul when' question... Forum member mavster posted this link in another forum (MOT Not Dead Yet)

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2002RECAP_H1101.pdf" target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2002RECAP_H1101.pdf</a>

It details some interesting info and might provide some hard 'proof' (something I was looking for) that shows another MOT based Apple might show up before a GPUL one steps in to take it's place.

Interesting thing I saw was on the 6th page where it shows the 7451/41 and 7455/45 having/supporting RapidIO. Is that TRUE?!?! I was under the impression that the 7451/41 and 7455/45 were still MaxBus based. If they are RapidIO then why couldn't Apple support full DDR support from the Memory to the CPU?

*or*

Is the riser card RapidIO and Apple had full intentions to move the MB to RapidIO as well but Apple had a problem with that motherboard (Moki said something about that) and had to move to a 'less agressive' motherboard in the 11th hour that did some kinda 'RapidIO to MaxBus translation.

Can you tell I'm talking about stuff that I know very little about?

Anyone wanna take a stab at clearing this stuff up?

Oh also the PDF indicats moving to a .13 process and bumping the onboard L2 cache to 512k as well as a few other things.

Dave

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #1178 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

Interesting thing I saw was on the 6th page where it shows the 7451/41 and 7455/45 having/supporting RapidIO. Is that TRUE?!?! I was under the impression that the 7451/41 and 7455/45 were still MaxBus based. If they are RapidIO then why couldn't Apple support full DDR support from the Memory to the CPU?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The current Apollo chips that Apple use do not support RapidIO. That doesn't mean Motorola hasn't been planning to add it though.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #1179 of 1258
OH boy!

If Apple had a faster bus available to them and has been dogging it for the last 12 months...

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

I don't even know what to say to that...
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #1180 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>OH boy!

If Apple had a faster bus available to them and has been dogging it for the last 12 months...

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

I don't even know what to say to that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I agree 110% Matsu! Then again Telomar could be on to something... The date this PDF was made (well as per the PDF Doc Properties) was July 24th of this year.

Dave

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #1181 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

Oh I agree 110% Matsu! Then again Telomar could be on to something... The date this PDF was made (well as per the PDF Doc Properties) was July 24th of this year.

Dave

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dave, now apply some of the info from the "GPUL on Oct 15th" thread. Borrowing from your post there (with assistance from Barto and Outsider):
[quote]<strong>

MPF 1998 = MOT = 7400. = 1 Year 0 Months
MPF 1999 = MOT = 7450. = 1 Year 6 Months
MPF 2000 = MOT = 7455. = 1 Year 6 Months
MPF 2001 = IBM = 750fx = 0 Year 6 Months
MPF 2002 = IBM = GPUL. = ? Year ? Months
</strong><hr></blockquote>

And, Moto hasn't made an official public announcement (aside from the roadmap "briefing chart"). So following Moto's past performance ...

I still don't have any faith in Moto.
post #1182 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>Oh I agree 110% Matsu! Then again Telomar could be on to something... The date this PDF was made (well as per the PDF Doc Properties) was July 24th of this year.

Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but it was obviously made from a Powerpoint presentation that was created much earlier than that. Did you notice that the "Apollo program" was referred to as a "new technology"? Sorry, but it looks to me like someone updated a presentation from last year's Smart Networks Developer Forum (SNDF) for presentation at this year's Forum. (2002 Recap).

Also, you'll note that the HiPerMOS perfromance roadmap has .13 parts targeted for the end of 2001. Yet here we are at the end of 2002, and I'm not seeing any 0.13 products out from Moto. Unless I'm missing something?
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #1183 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
Yes but it was obviously made from a Powerpoint presentation that was created much earlier than that. Did you notice that the "Apollo program" was referred to as a "new technology"? Sorry, but it looks to me like someone updated a presentation from last year's Smart Networks Developer Forum (SNDF) for presentation at this year's Forum. (2002 Recap).

Also, you'll note that the HiPerMOS perfromance roadmap has .13 parts targeted for the end of 2001. Yet here we are at the end of 2002, and I'm not seeing any 0.13 products out from Moto. Unless I'm missing something?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point, Tomb, this is an old document. Mot did not suceed to implement SOI 0,13 like he expected , he was oblige to downgrade to SOI 0,18 and he did not increase the size of the L2cache (512 K was great on SOI 0,13 but to big on SOI 0,18).
post #1184 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
Also, you'll note that the HiPerMOS perfromance roadmap has .13 parts targeted for the end of 2001. Yet here we are at the end of 2002, and I'm not seeing any 0.13 products out from Moto. Unless I'm missing something?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yes I agree with much of what you say but remember we ARE dealing with MOT here (MOT=delays)... Here is how I see it.

MOT would never make changes to the G4 unless the changes were at the request and/or agreed by Apple. Just like IBM wouldn't go out and expend the massive dollars to build a new CPU unless it already had customers SIGNED UP to buy em (as in contracted or formal agreement to use/buy them with an 'out clause' for the buyer so if IBM messes up and doesn't deliver in a window of X the deal is off)

I'm not sure if this is *exactly* how things work but it seems to be a reasonable way to do things.

So if we look at where we are now and assume the above holds true.

- IBM wouldn't build a GPUL without someone stepping up to the plate to buy them. Sure IBM will use em too but since the gpul isn't gonna be a replacment for the Power4 IBM I'm sure would like to (need?) another company buying the chips. From what we know Apple is the odds on favorite to fill that spot. IBM has it's own time table for when this CPU will be ready... It isn't tied to anything on the MOT side of the PPC fence.

- MOT wouldn't make changes (they cost money) to the G4 a (pretty much) Apple specific CPU unless Apple agreed to it. When I say agree I mean some form of contract with MOT to buy enough of the 'new feature' G4 CPUs to make it worth MOTS time (and money) MOT had to spend to make the changes in the first place.

Neither of these are a real issue...

But it looks like we have two ways to look at the future.

MOT G4++ being 1st out of the gate (not that I like it but this seems most likly)

- MOT G4++ machines in January
- IBM GPUL machines in Aug/Sep/Oct
- MOT G4++ moves down to the iMac/eMac (in their own time table)

What I don't like about this is the short life span of 'todays' machines. 4 months a tad quick to re-gen the desktop units.

G4 Duals just came out in Sept (4 month life)
G4++ In January (9ish month life)
G5 (err GPUL) In Aug/Sep/Oct


IBM GPUL and MOT G4++ showing up at the same time (this could happen and I'd like it but that is why I don't think it'll happen)

- IBM GPUL machines in March time frame.
- MOT G4++ iMac/eMac in March time frame.

This fixes some of the issues of about todays boxes having such a short life. Now it's would be close to 8 or so months (still short but not outta the question).

I really do like that 2nd plan since it's much cleaner but so many people think IBM based boxes are still 'late summer / fall' it could be I'm just wishfull thinking again.

..edit..

finally... MOT better have those plans still 'in the works' or Apple is in deep trouble. Sure Apple's desktop space will be fine given what we know/assume about the GPUL but the laptop space still needs an upgrade path. From things I've seen (not public yet) the size of the GPUL seems to be too big for use in laptops. I don't know about heat or low power functions of the GPUL (I wish) but my thinking is if the chip is larger than todays G4 (plus being built with a smaller process then todays G4) that cpu is gonna run hot and isn't gonna be battery friendly. Total speculation but it makes sense.

One bad rub with the 2nd plan...

If G4++ and GPUL aren't ready till Mar/Apr then what will Apple do for MWSF? Yea I know they have tried to push hardware away from the MW events but they have to have something... Jag is 'old news' and Panther is 'too soon' some other iApp or updates to existing ones should work (iPhoto iMovie are both rumored) as for hardware they can't really speed up the eMac/iMac too much... Well okay maybe 1Ghz (single processor) since all of the Pro machines are now DP and maybe a new Powerbook or iBook with bluetooth... Well yea any combo that stuff would take care of MWSF (people might be bummed but what else is new).

If they have a rumored iDevice (Cam / Phone / ???) that would/should fix that too.

Okay now I really like my second idea...

Dave

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #1185 of 1258
Someone has jumped the gun.
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html" target="_blank">Forbes IBM GPUL link</a>


Article says sources say Apple to use, but not ready until late next year at 1.8 GHZ.

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: CodeWarrior ]</p>
post #1186 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

. . . MOT would never make changes to the G4 unless the changes were at the request and/or agreed by Apple. Just like IBM wouldn't go out and expend the massive dollars to build a new CPU unless it already had customers SIGNED UP to buy em . . .

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe this too. IBM certainly has a use for the GPUL, but it is questionable whether their own, in-house usage would have been enough to justify the development costs. I think IBM made the GPUL for Apple, to Apple's requirements, but intends to use it too. Regarding Motorola, if we see G4 updates, it will be something Apple contracted for long ago. Who knows, it might be the last update from Motorola.

As for the new PowerMacs, the possibilities are almost too numerous to begin speculating. Here is just one more to add to the pot.

When the GPUL first appears, it will be the 130 nanometer process and be in the top two models of PowerMacs. The bottom two will be the new G4s from Motorola. The case will be the same as it is now, with plenty of cooling. Later, the GPUL will be the 90 nanometer process and be in all PowerMac models. At that time there may also be a new case, and the new G4s will move down to the iMac and eMac. The reason I say top two models is that there may be a real workstation class Mac at the very top.
post #1187 of 1258
Wow, you can't get clearer than that. It is the PPC 970, a single core and available the second half of 2003. Oh yes, 1.8 GHz. We even learned that IBM will make the Playstation 3 chip, though it didn't state that directly.

I change my guess about PowerMacs. The first 970 chips will already be 90 nanometers, and the whole PowerMac line will use it. No earlier introduction on the 130 nanometer process.
post #1188 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>Wow, you can't get clearer than that. It is the PPC 970, a single core and available the second half of 2003. Oh yes, 1.8 GHz. We even learned that IBM will make the Playstation 3 chip, though it didn't state that directly.

I change my guess about PowerMacs. The first 970 chips will already be 90 nanometers, and the whole PowerMac line will use it. No earlier introduction on the 130 nanometer process.</strong><hr></blockquote>

snoopy.... "Wow, you can't get clearer than that." ?!?! This is in reference to what? INPUT! DAVE NEEDS INPUT!!!!

Sorry for the bad movie quote... but I am serious was this a 'public' disclosure or something you just heard?

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #1189 of 1258
read the link posted by codewarrior.
post #1190 of 1258
Interestingly enough it initially says going into production late next year, which would mean a 2004 release, then says available 2nd half 2003. I'm inclined to think the first is an error but still Steve Jobs with an Uzi could be interesting

For all the people that are too lazy to press a link.

[quote]IBM server chip seen slimmed down for Apple Macs
Reuters, 10.13.02, 3:49 PM ET

(TRANSMISSION EMBARGO UNTIL 12:01 am EDT/0401 GMT)

ARMONK, N.Y. (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. Monday announced a microchip for personal computers that will crunch data in chunks twice as big as the current standard and is expected by industry watchers to be used by Apple Computer Inc.

Apple was not available to comment, and IBM declined to comment on which PC makers would use the chip, but its plans would mark a change for the industry, which has emphasized the importance of the speed of a chip rather than its ability to handle heavy workloads.

IBM said its new PowerPC chip would go into production late next year and process 64 bits of data at a time at 1.8 Gigahertz, or 1.8 billion cycles per second.

The microchip is the brain of a computer, although personal computer chips now come only in 32-bit flavors, which are tuned to do light workloads fast but cannot handle heavy duty server chores.

Chekib Akrout, vice president of IBM microprocessor development, said big databases and the Internet challenged PCs: "This is the time to introduce a 64-bit machine capable of being used on a desktop," he said in a telephone interview.

An industry source said Cupertino, California-based Apple would use the chip in its Macintosh computers.

That could catapult Apple, long dogged by the belief its chips are slower than those produced by Intel Corp., to the technological head of the class and put to rest speculation it was considering moving soon to the Intel platform.

The fastest of the current generation of PowerPC chips in Macintosh computers runs at 1.25 Gigahertz, while the top Intel Pentium is 2.8 Gigahertz. Apple says its machines are already more efficient than Intel-based ones.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc., the main competitor to Intel, is also developing a 64-bit chip code-named Hammer that is expected early next year, although it is planned primarily for servers rather than personal computers.

SERVER LITE

IBM said the new PowerPC 970 microchip is a "lite" version of its Power4 chip, which it launched last fall in its sophisticated computer server, code-named "Regatta."

The PowerPC can run 32-bit applications as well as 64-bit ones and is tuned for graphics, like some Intel chips, IBM said. However, it is not designed to run programs written for Intel chips.

The PowerPC has the same energy-saving attributes as the Power4 but uses only one central processing unit, not two.

The chip will be available in the second half of 2003 and be built in IBM's East Fishkill, New York, chip plant, a new facility that is currently doing test-runs and aims to ramp up into production on other chips later this year.

One analyst said the chip's attributes mean it would work well in the professional publishing sector, for high-end graphics and other media-intense tasks.

"This processor would be a great processor for a Macintosh," said Tom Halfhill, an analyst with San Jose, California-based In-Stat/MDR.

IBM, the world's largest computer company, has seen revenue from its microelectronics division dwindle in recent quarters as the semiconductor sector has been hit by a sharp downturn in demand. It has restructured the unit, selling off some assets.

IBM announced earlier this week more details on its new microelectronics design unit, where it will design chips and other electronics for customers, including Sony Corp.

Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service<hr></blockquote>

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #1191 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:


snoopy.... "Wow, you can't get clearer than that." ?!?! This is in reference to what? INPUT! DAVE NEEDS INPUT!!!!

Sorry for the bad movie quote... but I am serious was this a 'public' disclosure or something you just heard?

Dave
<hr></blockquote>

I think it's in reference to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html" target="_blank">this Forbes article</a> mentioned in a previous post.
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #1192 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>Interestingly enough it initially says going into production late next year, which would mean a 2004 release, then says available 2nd half 2003. I'm inclined to think the first is an error but still Steve Jobs with an Uzi could be interesting.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hope you are right. Late may mean last half. In any case, I believe Apple will have hardware waiting for those chips as they come from IBM.

Has there ever been a microprocessor with so much interest and anticipation?

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
post #1193 of 1258
Allright, I'm curious. What is this mysterious Uzi quote that is constantly being referred to?

A bit more on topic, [quote] Has there ever been a microprocessor with so much interest and anticipation? <hr></blockquote> Yes. Remember MWNY 2001? How about MWSF 2002? The G5 has been anticipated a *lot* longer than this new-fangled GP-UL. But, the GP-UL does have a lot more substantial information behind it than the G5 ever did. Of course, you could always say that the GP-UL is the G5 . . . but that's a different monster all together.
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Reply
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Reply
post #1194 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by bauman:
<strong>Allright, I'm curious. What is this mysterious Uzi quote that is constantly being referred to?

A bit more on topic, Yes. Remember MWNY 2001? How about MWSF 2002? The G5 has been anticipated a *lot* longer than this new-fangled GP-UL. But, the GP-UL does have a lot more substantial information behind it than the G5 ever did. Of course, you could always say that the GP-UL is the G5 . . . but that's a different monster all together.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure -- the difference is that the people who were claiming the G5 was coming out had absolutely no clue what they were talking about.

The GP-UL, on the other hand, is very real.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #1195 of 1258
The article didn't say anything about Altivec, but I suppose it's been *confirmed* by other sources.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #1196 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>The article didn't say anything about Altivec, but I suppose it's been *confirmed* by other sources.</strong><hr></blockquote>

VMX
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #1197 of 1258
That was "confirmed" in the write up about the processor announcement at the Microprocessor Forum:
"Breaking Through Compute Intensive Barriers - IBM's New 64-bit PowerPC Microprocessor
Peter Sandon, Senior Processor Architect, Power PC Organization,
IBM Microelectronics IBM is disclosing the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s."

The bit of interest is "The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions"
post #1198 of 1258
I wonder if those Alti-Vec savvy apps require a recompling for use with this "new" vector unit.
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #1199 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>I wonder if those Alti-Vec savvy apps require a recompling for use with this "new" vector unit.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If they do the developers will have time to recompile them anyway. Apple will incorporate any changes needed into their compiler before the chip is even released.
post #1200 of 1258
[quote]Originally posted by bauman:
<strong>

Remember MWNY 2001? How about MWSF 2002? The G5 has been anticipated a *lot* longer than this new-fangled GP-UL.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I should have been clear on my question. I meant, has there ever been a chip at the Microprocessor Forum that generated this much interest and anticipation?

Regarding the Uzi, it was a joking comment from Moki I believe. Very roughly from memory, if Apple didn't have a new microprocessor before 2004, SJ would stalk the halls with an Uzi. If I got it wrong, sorry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?