or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › CONFIRMED IBM Power PC 970
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CONFIRMED IBM Power PC 970

post #1 of 490
Thread Starter 
Here is it shipping in the second half of 2003 starting at 1.8ghz.

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html</a>

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #2 of 490
very cool stuff. Looks legit too.

Now we have to see what all the OFFICIAL stuff will be like.

Expect getting indoctrinated and convinced that 64bit is the COOL thing you want in a computer... forget GHz
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #3 of 490
So is this what we were waiting till the 15th to hear? This is the power4 'lite' so I believe it is!!

Second half of next year is gonna rock, hehehe
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #4 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>Here is it shipping in the second half of 2003 starting at 1.8ghz.

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2002/10/13/rtr749520.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

Please note that the linked article is embargoed until April 1st. That is April Fool's Day for those of you outside the USA.
post #5 of 490
Ya I'm excited BUT this won't help make people change their views on Ghz. I mean by that time Intel will be at 5+ Ghz and Apple will have what, Dual 1.8?
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #6 of 490
Now the question is:

What we are going to see in Spring 2003?

There gotta be something to come before the PPC 970 comes out of door

Moto's PPC 7500 at 1.5Ghz top? Maybe.......

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
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 #7 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Me:
<strong>Please note that the linked article is embargoed until April 1st. That is April Fool's Day for those of you outside the USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>Nah, that 12:01 Eastern time, 0401 Greenwich Mean Time. It doesn't have a day - presumably it's for Monday, and they jumped the gun by a few hours.
post #8 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>Now the question is:

What we are going to see in Spring 2003?

There gotta be something to come before the PPC 970 comes out of door

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

I'll put it out again, a G4++ from moto with new mobo.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #9 of 490
If PPC 970 is launched at 1.8Ghz top. I think the PPC 7500 G4+++ will be around 1.4-1.6 highest.

I know the main difference is 64bit vs 32bit....but average joes don't care

Well......to me.....that means I will have to make around round of money spending to pay for the software that really takes advantage of 64bit processors......if I want speed

Oh by the way KidRed. Why are you so sure about this???? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
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 #10 of 490
1.8GHz by the end of next year? Hello, McFly! This isn't great news. I just hope it's not too little too late.
post #11 of 490
It will begin production near the end of next year? Sounds like a g5 launch at MacWorld SF in January, 2004.
post #12 of 490
If one 1.8GHz PPC970s isn't enough to clobber Intel and AMD, two should do the job. The 970 presumably has Altivec and a VERY high IPC. I wouldn't worry too much about the P4, although the Opteron could pose a threat.

Does anyone know if the 970 has separate or shared buses for multiple CPUs?
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

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

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #13 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Nah, that 12:01 Eastern time, 0401 Greenwich Mean Time. It doesn't have a day - presumably it's for Monday, and they jumped the gun by a few hours.</strong><hr></blockquote>As IBM is not scheduled to make the announcement until Tuesday, it would seem they jumped the gun by more than a few hours.
post #14 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>
Does anyone know if the 970 has separate or shared buses for multiple CPUs?</strong><hr></blockquote>

More importantly (I think), how quickly can it scale to two or more cores? I think two cores are better than two chips, even if the two processor system is running on highly efficient busses. Of course, two chips with a nice bus architecture are better than a one core chip....
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #15 of 490
wow, a truly confirmed thread??? What is this world comming to?

psst, dose anyone know if my qs 867 can be upgraded to one of these
ThunderPoit: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME!

savi: DONOT MOCK SADAMS WORDS!
Reply
ThunderPoit: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME!

savi: DONOT MOCK SADAMS WORDS!
Reply
post #16 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by mugwump:
<strong>It will begin production near the end of next year? Sounds like a g5 launch at MacWorld SF in January, 2004.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope, we'll have it by next fall, relax.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #17 of 490
2H03 doesn't mean the end of next year. It could mean as early as July 2003...
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #18 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Me:
<strong>

As IBM is not scheduled to make the announcement until Tuesday, it would seem they jumped the gun by more than a few hours.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, the article says IBM announced the chip Monday, and someone in the new department didn't see the embargo notice. They gave us early news. Tuesday is when IBM presents the technical details of the chip at the Microprocessor Forum.
post #19 of 490
Dude, why the frick are you getting your panties up in a knot because the thing only runs at 1.8 GHz. I don't care what speed the CPUs Apple uses run at as long as they are truly faster than x86 based machines. The POWER4 chip runs at what, top speed 1.3 GHz or something? Might even be lower than the G4 for all I know, but who cares? The thing is a moster, and having a PowerPC processor that goes into Mac systems based on the same technology is killer. I think I'm gonna pee my pants come Tuesday.

LETS GO BIG BLUE
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #20 of 490
if this is tru i think apple should buy another page of the NYtimes and instead of welcoming IBM (the did this before no?) they should put a thank you
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #21 of 490
It's seems is will wait until July 2003 to change my G3 333 in my office. This computer will rock
post #22 of 490
KidRed, Eugene, and Powerdoc are now all spinning the middle of next year. You just gotta love the expectation escalation that goes on here thanks to those members, moderators, etc :

"IBM said its new PowerPC chip would go into production late next year"

Which part of "late next year" do you not understand?
post #23 of 490
We all see the irony that IBM is becoming Apple's savior, don't we?
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #24 of 490
I'm betting on MWSF in 2004 for the introduction.

Jet
- I used to be SdC, ting5, and YAR, but I'm sticking to Jet, I promise.
- <a href="http://suckful.com" target="_blank">http://suckful.com</a> &lt;--My NEW! weblog
Reply
- I used to be SdC, ting5, and YAR, but I'm sticking to Jet, I promise.
- <a href="http://suckful.com" target="_blank">http://suckful.com</a> &lt;--My NEW! weblog
Reply
post #25 of 490
970? That's 9xx. And don't I recall correctly that 8xx and 9xx processors are embedded-only? Has this ever changed? Don't think so. Something's strange about this.

But people, would you please stop thinking that Megahertz equals performances <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
post #26 of 490
PowerPC 4xx's and 5xx's are embedded CPUs.

PowerPC 6xx's were desktop CPUs

PowerPC 7xx's and 7xxx's are high-end embedded CPUs.

PowerPC 8xx's and 8xxx's are communication CPUs.

This 9xx series starts where the 6xx ended (with the PowerPC 630 - Power3).

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #27 of 490
One point

Intel will go ahead and launch the p5 at the same time or soon after if not before. I really have no idea but it seems like its inevitable.

so they'll be doing 4ghz by then assuming that in fact intel is having a harder time getting there chips to go faster.

Of course i just read random tidbits of information and don't exactly know if everythign i read is right but thats just what i see from intel coming to smack down the ibm chip even though it appears that it will be superior

This is hopefully the g5 i am expecting and hopefully not unique to the xserve or any possible workstation. I also hope these chips are dirt cheap, but thats just hope.
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
post #28 of 490
Remember all the marketing buzz which accompanied the apparition of game consoles with new "8xbits" architectures : it was THE argument to sell them and it became quickly apparent that the path from 8 bits to 16 bits to 32 bits consoles really meant passing from a generation to a new one, with huge improvements each time.

Using the same strategy for Apple could bring a lot of benefits (far more than the inclusion of Altivec as a commercial argument).

What sounds better : the old bud called Pentium 4 at 4 Ghz but still 32 bits or the new comer 64 bits processors at nearly 2 Ghz working by 2 or 4 at a time (on a FW 2 equipped computer using the newest generation of Unix system) ?
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
post #29 of 490
My last Apple tower was '200mhz'.

I can live with a 1.8 gig Tower that thumps a G4 to the tune of four times faster. A four gig G4 equivalent? And then you've got the bandwidth. An altivec equivalent that will be running at faster mhz.

Sounds like a chip to shatter the mhz myth.

You only have to look at the Power 4 at 1.3 to see that a GPUL at 1.8 with altivec is going to do very nicely indeed.

The 'hammer' is only running at 800mhz according to certain websites. AMD will do an 'XP' rating thing of about 3400 by the sounds of things.

Intel 'may' have a 4 gig P4. So?

At least a gig of that 4 gig will be inefficient fluff.

What's it got? 1 op per cycle?

The GPUL will have 8 (five actual?) instructions, out of order, 2 fpu, altivec etc which means higher than 1 instruction per cycle.

X86 opposition's 64 bit consumer desktops are nowhere to be seen for the first half of 2003. When they do turn up, the GPUL will be there to greet them with higher mhz (it must be noted...) for what its worth (not very much.)

In short, the GPUL will be at least competitive with anything x86 has at the time and Mac users who've struggled with G4 revisions will feel like they've got lightspeed with the GPUL.

I sure as hell can't wait to unpack the box and start Lightwave benching!

My optimistic side says a GPUL at 1.8 is going to really take out a 4 gig Pentium 4 in a fight.

After the dismal run of G4 huff and puff revisions, I'll take the GPUL, running at 1.8 (at least?) on the 6.4 gig bandwidth. And I'll pony up the money and like it. Something I couldn't say of the '2 for 1' and still not worth it G4.

Apple may not comment on this chip. We may see a 'fair' .13 G4 with on board controller in the meantime...but I think it's reasonable to assume we'll have a GPUL announcement at Macworld New York. Fingers crossed.

The benefits to the Mac platform are massive. Apple gets a 'big business' partner with their head glued on. That may help alot for Apple's X-serve's strat'. IBM is the biggest computer company in the world (or there abouts...) and that's going to give Apple more credibility in the press and general than Motorola, a company...kinda drowning right now..., a strong long term partner for Apple, a definite road map for the future as Power 4 and Power 5 revisions come on stream...and IBM are in the consumer space with developing multimedia chips for Sony et al. A good, all round partner with cpus to allow Apple compete in desktop, embedded arenas.

What's more, I'm looking forward to Apple dusting off those old fried snail ads...

Lemon Bon Bon

PS.

"Using the same strategy for Apple could bring a lot of benefits (far more than the inclusion of Altivec as a commercial argument).

What sounds better : the old bud called Pentium 4 at 4 Ghz but still 32 bits or the new comer 64 bits processors at nearly 2 Ghz working by 2 or 4 at a time (on a FW 2 equipped computer using the newest generation of Unix system) ?"

I agree.

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
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 #30 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>Now the question is:

What we are going to see in Spring 2003?

There gotta be something to come before the PPC 970 comes out of door

Moto's PPC 7500 at 1.5Ghz top? Maybe.......

[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
We'll see gamboling lambs, spring blossom, lacklustre stop-gap Powermacs and some very bad earning from Apple.

This release is great news, but unless Apple make the Feb'03 PM ditch the MPX and give some real perfomance enhancements, their PM sales will be truly dire. People are holding off buying new machines ... in edit suites, repro, music studios etc ...

I really hope they bring in some well-needed cash with some margin-friendly new digital devices to tide them over for the next 12 months ...

fingers x'd!
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: jobes ]

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: jobes ]</p>
Nothing but sunshine, it's all sunshine ....
Reply
Nothing but sunshine, it's all sunshine ....
Reply
post #31 of 490
Anyone know about actual performance difference between 32 and 64 bit in 3D rendering, photoshop etc.?
post #32 of 490
One thing to note that may make you feel even better...
I can't currently find the source for this, but as soon as I do I'll post it, but, Windows XP and 2000 have reportedly been unable to run on processors of 2.8ghz and upward. This is do to some poor legacy code in the kernel. Apparently running WinXp/2k on these faster chips means instructions are returned to the kernel before it has completed the execute cycle. This has not been fixed in XP's SP1 release and won't be fixed for at least 12 months probably not till the next major OS update.

HOWEVER a certain Unix based OS has no problem scaling as high as you like due to the well written kernel code....
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
post #33 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>We all see the irony that IBM is becoming Apple's savior, don't we?</strong><hr></blockquote>

kinda what i was going for
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #34 of 490
Fact is, none of this information can be verified by IBM until IBM actually releases it. For all we know this can be speculation and reports of inside 'sources'...
post #35 of 490
[quote]Posted by G4Dude: I mean by that time Intel will be at 5+ Ghz <hr></blockquote>

Well not really. By then, both Intel and AMD will have moved onto their next generation procs, both slated to intro at around 1.6-1.8ghz, and around the same time. Far leaner design, less pipeline stages and the like.

That is why AMD is now jumping around trying to dispell the Mhz myth that it has been living off for the past 3 years!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

It seems that if Apple does adopt this chip promptly, they will be right back in the fray once more!!! YEAH BABY!!!!

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>
post #36 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Fact is, none of this information can be verified by IBM until IBM actually releases it. For all we know this can be speculation and reports of inside 'sources'...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am praying very hard that the information is true. I will be starting work in July next year. hopefully I can afford one of these 1.8ghz machines!!
iSurf, iSaw and iType
Reply
iSurf, iSaw and iType
Reply
post #37 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

More importantly (I think), how quickly can it scale to two or more cores? I think two cores are better than two chips, even if the two processor system is running on highly efficient busses. Of course, two chips with a nice bus architecture are better than a one core chip....</strong><hr></blockquote>

From a marketing perspective, two single core chips may be better than one dual core chip. Most members of the public can understand the benefits of multiple processors, multiple cores may be lost on them.
post #38 of 490
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,55722,00.html" target="_blank">Wired</a>


<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #39 of 490
Thread Starter 
Apple knows the effect this announcement will have on sales of their current PM's, devistating. They will want to have this processor shipping as close to this announcement as possible. I think one analyst predicted a tough time for Apple in 2003 and that has reflected in the share price. Apple will do well to remain in the black until this chip is shipping, which could explain the spat of recent job cuts.

I think we all know that this chip will make or break Apple, it is vital for their future. I just hope that it lives up to our expactations and I look forward to seeing the rendering benchmarks in due course.

How about an Xraid rendering farm with thses fitted.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #40 of 490
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › CONFIRMED IBM Power PC 970