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 - Page 7

post #241 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Dave Marsh:
<strong>I also noted the need for a new custom system controller that would have to be designed from the beginning for X number of processors. Here's the quote:

"System Chip Support

One of the more troublesome hurdle for Apple to overcome in the adoption of the PowerPC 970 processor may be the system engineering aspect of the processor. As described previously, the 4 byte wide unidirectional serial links may provide upwards of 6 to 7 GB of raw bandwidth per second. However, the specification of the ~900 MHz operation on the system board would require considerable investment into the system support chip. Moreover, the nature of the point to point interconnect means that to support a dual CPU system, the companion chip must be designed with the dual CPU SMP in mind, with dedicated channels devoted to each CPU. Furthermore, to support the high bandwidth available on the system interconnect, a dual channel PC2700 DDR SDRAM memory system would appear to be a minimum requirement to support a single CPU. Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."

My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardware working reliably.

Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
:confused:

[ 10-16-2002: Message edited by: Dave Marsh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


Apple probably already has this chip in house, and most likely has been working on the motherboard since May/June of this year. If I understand it, Apple does a lot of the custom chip design for the Mac systems, so they should have the talent and experience to design the daughter cards for these processors without relying on IBM for everything, and it is possible that IBM and Apple are pooling their R&D budgets together to come up with a common daughter cards and chip sets for the variouse configurations will likely use such as Singal, Dual and Quads.
post #242 of 490
Here's an interesting thought, what if IBM is designing the hardware for themselves AND Apple to use. Not the actual motherboard, but perhaps the core of the system controller. IBM uses CoreConnect for all their new designs, so if they licensed the actual core to Apple, Apple would have most of the work on a memory/PCI interface already done. Add to the core a firewire, ethernet, and PCI-X controller (all cores that IBM also produces) they can have a solution ready as soon as the processors come out of the factory.
post #243 of 490
Thread Starter 
Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.
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 #244 of 490
next year apple will have eazy-e on their homepage, "cruisin' down the street in my 64', jockin' the bitches, slapin' the hoe's"

can't wait for this to happen!
it seems like we've been waiting forever!
post #245 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How does this vindicate him? First he said that there was no G5 and then when all the rumor sites started reporting G5 he said all of a sudden he got a POwer Mac with a G5 in it and the part number was MOT 8500.

Vindicated? Nope. Fraud? Probably.
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #246 of 490
post #247 of 490
Faithful? I never had faith in Dorsal. And he frequently described processors that resemble tha MPC85xx series.

Anybody who believed Dorsal in the past, present or future is naive. I loved how he always got a conservatively configured, middle-of-the-road and super-duper prototype to cover all the bases.

[ 10-16-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #248 of 490
From the MacCentral Website <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php" target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php</a>

At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.

-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.

Also, which thread should we be using to discuss this chip. Seems we have several. It would be easier to follow one thread (even the long one since there is no need to re-read it). That is, unless these threads are each discussing different aspects of the chip. To me, they all seem the same.

Here's hoping for a GPUL PowerBook in a year. I would imagine it's a definate when the process is reduced .09 micron.

Terry
post #249 of 490
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by TBoxman:
<strong>From the MacCentral Website <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php" target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php</a>

At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.

-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. Of course the 0.9 version will be much better particulaly for a book.
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 #250 of 490
"Originally posted by A Random Walk:
Moki, are you sure the future high-end is the 970 and not the G5?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming you are talking about a "G5" from MOT -- don't hold your breath. I'm told Steve Jobs, after a particularly unproductive meeting with MOT representatives, told them to "Get the **** out of my office"

Apparently his Steveness wasn't pleased with their progress in terms of silicon and speed. "

I can see that.

Lemon Bon Bon



PS. The G4 wasn't an 'uberworkstation'. I doubt in pricing terms the GPUL will be either. It's probably going into next gen' PowerMacs worthy of the name. That much seems pretty obvious. The recent incarnations seem to have to gotten increasingly desperate.
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 #251 of 490
Will the 970 be "workstation class" if there were two dual cored CPUs in the box? :cool:
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #252 of 490
I also noted the need for a new custom system controller that would have to be designed from the beginning for X number of processors. Here's the quote:

"System Chip Support

One of the more troublesome hurdle for Apple to overcome in the adoption of the PowerPC 970 processor may be the system engineering aspect of the processor. As described previously, the 4 byte wide unidirectional serial links may provide upwards of 6 to 7 GB of raw bandwidth per second. However, the specification of the ~900 MHz operation on the system board would require considerable investment into the system support chip. Moreover, the nature of the point to point interconnect means that to support a dual CPU system, the companion chip must be designed with the dual CPU SMP in mind, with dedicated channels devoted to each CPU. Furthermore, to support the high bandwidth available on the system interconnect, a dual channel PC2700 DDR SDRAM memory system would appear to be a minimum requirement to support a single CPU. Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."

My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.

Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 27" 3.4GHz, iPad Air 64GB, iPhone 5 32GB

Reply

- Dave Marsh
iMac Intel 27" 3.4GHz, iPad Air 64GB, iPhone 5 32GB

Reply
post #253 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Dave Marsh:
<strong>My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip? Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well. MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.

Comments from anyone who actually understands how all this works?
:confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't claim to be someone who actually understands this <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> , but I believe that when a chip is being "sampled", that samples are provided from trial runs for the mass-production runs of the chip. Before that point, I'd imagine prototypes from small custom batches are available, and that a customer as potentially important as Apple would be able to get a few of these prototypes with which to begin their design and testing.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #254 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by TBoxman:
<strong>From the MacCentral Website <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php" target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php</a>

At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts. At 1.2 GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.1-volts and dissipate only 19-Watts. For comparison, a 1GHz G4 consumes 1.6-volts and dissipates 21.3-Watts.

-----
Doesn't this indicate that the PPC 970 is ready to be dropped into PowerBooks as well as PowerMacs? I would easily opt for a 1.2 GHz GPUL PowerBook over a 1 Ghz G4 PowerBook.

Terry</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow, following this i don't think we'll see duals acrosse the board then. A single 1.2ghjz GPUL is almos the same as a dual gig. LOL, I wonder what a dual 1.8ghz GPUL would do, 60-80 watts?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #255 of 490
You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).

Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.
post #256 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
to the contrary, i believe dorsal consistently stated that the "g5" machines he was working on had motorola processors in them. i remember specifically because i said a couple of times after his posts that the g5 would not be coming from motorola, but rather ibm. so i don't think it vindicates him in any way.
post #257 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Ptrash:
<strong>You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).

Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You exaggerate how badly and how often Apple stumbles. They aren't stupid, if they were the company would have gone out of business 20 years ago. "Letdowns" from rumours is almost always because the rumour mill wound itself up too tight and got out of hand. Rest assured that Apple will adopt this chip because it has no alternative in the PowerPC market -- the main question is when.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #258 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Ptrash:
<strong>You're all assuming that Apple's made a decision here, and is in the process of developing a system (hardware and software) based on this chip. Are you sure all of you aren't overestimating Apple's ability to get things right, or underestimating their ability to screw things up? Or underestimating the ability of Job's egomania to somehow disrupt this entire script? (Scenario: Jobs gets so POd at the negative impact IBM's disclosure (and all of the press' attendant theorizing) has on PowerMac sales that he tells IBM to take a hike).

Remember, this is Apple, a company that often manages to do more damage to itself than the competition could ever hope to do. Sorry for the dose of pessimism, but it just seems like such a familair script on these boards: we hear good news, albeit usually in rumor form, but reality is almost always a big letdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1033849024847&p=1012571727 085" target="_blank">I don't know</a>, maybe Apple will have no other choice soon...
post #259 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Dave Marsh:
My question, not being a chip tech person, is how long would we expect it to take Apple to design/build/manufacture this chip?</strong>

Probably 1 year to design, then another year to debug. So, if Apple didn't start designing the system ASIC for a prospective PPC 970 in late 2001, they probably won't be shipping in late 2003. And this is probably optimistic. I'll hazard a guess that if Apple made the decision to use it 2H 2001, they probably started the design in 2H 2001.

This bus seems suspiciously like a 450 MHz 32 bit Hypertransport bus, albiet modified, and Apple joined the HT consortium in early 2H 01, so maybe the design work started then.

<strong>Considering that IBM says it won't have samples ready for Apple until April - June 2003, and Apple will need this controller chip to test with the new 970, it would seem EXTREMELY OPTIMISTIC to expect anything but just a pre-announcement at MWNY in July, with availability in the Sep 2003 timeframe, if all goes well.</strong>

Well, it all depends on what sampling means to IBM. If sampling means first silicon in Q2 03, Apple won't have machines until Q1 04. If sampling means pilot production, then a Q3 03 ship is possible.

The other interesting question is if this chip isn't for Apple, then what system ASIC will IBM use?

<strong>MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.</strong>

The PPC 970 can be run in 32 bit mode, so only a minimum of changes needs to made to get OS 10 to run it. Apple can then take their sweet time transitioning to 64 bit Mac OS.
post #260 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

Wow, following this i don't think we'll see duals acrosse the board then. A single 1.2ghjz GPUL is almos the same as a dual gig. LOL, I wonder what a dual 1.8ghz GPUL would do, 60-80 watts?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you've confused something here.

A single 1.2 GHz IBM PPC 970 uses 19 watts typical.
A single 1 GHz Motorola MPC7455 uses 21.3 watts typical...30 watts maximum. My computer has a pair, so that's 42.6-60 watts.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #261 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>Does this news vindicate Dorsal M? I think it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>

NO! I enjoyed his posts and thought there might be some truth in them but he was obviously making the whole thing up.

I believe Apple probably has some chips to test and design around. I doubt very much they are ready to start sending them out for testing by third parties yet. I would give them at least a few more months before that happens. Hopefully we might hear some actual performance info then.
post #262 of 490
where did you people get those fun Intel quotes about "there must be a bottleneck somewhere", and somethign like if the chip is as good as its made out to be we are worried or something, sorry i've been skimming over because 2 days ago it was only 2 pages, haha lot of reading to catch up on

...havn'tbeen a member long, but this is probably the fastest growing thread i've seen
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #263 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>the CPU and controller communicate with 2 32bit buses; thats at least 120 pins for one CPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>

2x32=120? Is it using differential signaling?
post #264 of 490
post #265 of 490
Ars Technica has a brief <a href="http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html" target="_blank">look</a> at the 970 up. Its pretty good, especially the realistic conclusion.

[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: FotNS ]</p>
post #266 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
<strong>Ars Technica has a brief <a href="http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html" target="_blank">look</a> at the 970 up. Its pretty good, especially the realistic conclusion.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think a more realistic conclusion could be made when the chip is actually available to the real world, but that's just me.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #267 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

I think a more realistic conclusion could be made when the chip is actually available to the real world, but that's just me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You would not think so from the way the 970 is being discussed here. From reading this thread it seems the 970 had already been proclaimed as the greatest CPU ever.
post #268 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
<strong>Ars Technica has a brief <a href="http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html" target="_blank">look</a> at the 970 up. Its pretty good, especially the realistic conclusion.

[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: FotNS ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree with Hannibal on the conclusion.

Things we know:
- SPEC tests for PPC 970 and P4 2.8 are roughly similar at this point
- SPEC is very biased towards intel. . . the x86 FPU is crap, and that's a fact. Do your own research.
- I highly doubt the SPEC for the 970 were 64bit programs. Are there any yet for PPC? Um, I don't think so.
- The compiler (gcc) for x86 is disgustingly more optimized than the one for PPC.
- I don't think VMX was measured in these tests.
and lastly:
- The SPEC benchmarks for the 970 are pure conjecture as far as I know.

Three likely things we'll see in a year:
- P4 gains some clock speed, loses some instr/cycle. Net effect: 20% speed increase.
- A Compiler is optimized for 970, PPC in general, along with VMX.
- Thusly, Benchmarks double if not triple for what we'd expect them to be for current 970. So let's be conservative and say 100% speed increase, just due to the compile and proper testing.

I think, when it debuts, the PPC970 will be able to go toe-to-toe with anything from AMD or Intel, if not beat them outright. This is IBM we're talking about here, not Moto. IBM draws a lot of water in the computer world. I think enough to get a good compiler out within a year.

Another interesting tidbit I noticed is that, unlike prior PPC's, the 970 has a microcode interpreter in its core. That doesn't mean anything in terms of speed, I wouldn't think, but I was suprised to see it. . . It implies to me that IBM has no plans to make this an embedded processor.

[quote]
You would not think so from the way the 970 is being discussed here. From reading this thread it seems the 970 had already been proclaimed as the greatest CPU ever.
<hr></blockquote>
A 1.8Ghz 970 cracked more RC5 keys than a Power4, which, if you ask me, is the greatest CPU ever.

[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #269 of 490
[quote] You would not think so from the way the 970 is being discussed here. From reading this thread it seems the 970 had already been proclaimed as the greatest CPU ever. <hr></blockquote>

Perhaps you are not familiar with the sh!t-ridden whore of a company we deal with called MOTOROLA? After dealing with them for YEARS and watching our asses sink into irrelevance, I think a little irrational exuberance is called for.

Plus, all the signs say that the chip will at least be "very competitive" if not, "best chip in the w0rld!".

That is much better than where we sit today.
post #270 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Splinemodel:
<strong>
A 1.8Ghz 970 cracked more RC5 keys than a Power4, which, if you ask me, is the greatest CPU ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You forget RC5 is heavily altivec optimised and the POWER4 doesn't have altivec, or VRF.
"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 #271 of 490
"Motorola is the problem for Apple, not the solution. The sooner Apple makes a complete committment to IBM the better. IBM will lead Apple to the next generation of power-pc cpu's, not Motorola.
Who is the leader in R & D in the computing industry? IBM
Who is the major backer of UNIX in the corporate setting?
IBM
UNIX underlies OSX.
If there is a G5, it won't be Motorola, it should be IBM."

I got that quote from somewhere.

Hmmm.

"Perhaps you are not familiar with the sh!t-ridden whore of a company we deal with called MOTOROLA? After dealing with them for YEARS and watching our asses sink into irrelevance, I think a little irrational exuberance is called for."

I wouldn't have put it quite like that...

Power 4 doesn't have altivec but the GPUL does.



That's what you call icing on the cake by the looks of things.

I think 2004 Mac Janworld is worst case scenario.

It sounds to me like Apple told Moto to take their G5 and shove it.

Meanwhile, Apple uses the same G4s for now...does dual...minor architecture improvements.

I hear they used 7555 revised to get to 1.25?

Apparently opting not to use the latest G4 revision.

I think the reasons for this are:

Apple are stalling? The next G4 has got to last quite a while.

We may see a new case in Jan 2003. Completely new. The .13 G4s. Up to 1.6 gig with...part of the other reason for the G4's 'delayed' improvement.

ie a proper next gen DDR architecture to compliment the 2nd Gen' Apollos running up to 1.6 gig. (Y'know, the one Moki hinted got 'delayed'...)

If the GPUL doesn't arrive until 2004 Jan'...we may get .13 G4s in Jan' and .9 G4s in New York next year. Or .13 G4 Apollo 2's in Jan' and dual version strategy in New York next year.

Either way...I've got a sneaky feeling Apple will drop the 'all dual' strat' for Jan' for tactical reasons if the GPUL can't ship or announce at New York 2003.

Just my thoughts.

It's what's going to happen in the mean time that will provoke much thought. I tend to concur with Kidred on this one...

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 10-17-2002: 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 #272 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>[qb]MacOS X also has to be modified to be 64-bit compliant, but I expect that's already been done. That just leaves getting the hardward working reliably.</strong>

The PPC 970 can be run in 32 bit mode, so only a minimum of changes needs to made to get OS 10 to run it. Apple can then take their sweet time transitioning to 64 bit Mac OS.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Would it be a sane proposition tp say that if Apple have an Intel compatible build of OS X that is up to date with the commercial release, then they would probably also have a 64bit version maybe running on Power4 hardware from IBM or Proto-gpul boxes also keeping step. I'm guessing that 10.3 will ship with a 32bit and 64bit installer in the box.

*and why are we all suddenly unregistered!?*

[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: robster ]</p>
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 #273 of 490
THT said:

This bus seems suspiciously like a 450 MHz 32 bit Hypertransport bus, albiet modified, and Apple joined the HT consortium in early 2H 01, so maybe the design work started then.


It also suspiciously looks like the GX bus already used on the POWER4 but will some modifications (like DDR).
post #274 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
<strong>

You would not think so from the way the 970 is being discussed here. From reading this thread it seems the 970 had already been proclaimed as the greatest CPU ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well I don't know about that but one thing is for sure... While IBM told us the story of the GPUL this Tuesday they forgot to put 'to be continued' at the end of their talk. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Oh, and by the comments being made by a few of the fellow AI members I'm not the only one who knows this.

Dave

[ 10-17-2002: 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 #275 of 490
What I want to know is how does the 970 stack up against the AppleInsider designed G5 we almost shipped a year ago? For some reason there seems to be less excitement about this. Damn you reality, damn you to hell! I just knew moki would ruin this place when he started talking sense. Nirvana always seems to be a year away. Well, I guess at least we now know what it looks like, and that we have a real future there. I can't help but wonder, however, what the hell we are going to talk about until then? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #276 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Outsider:
It also suspiciously looks like the GX bus already used on the POWER4 but will some modifications (like DDR).</strong>

I think you're more correct than me. They did have to put in quite a few features into the GX bus to support processor bus type features though.
post #277 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by murk:
<strong>I can't help but wonder, however, what the hell we are going to talk about until then? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Digital Devices
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 #278 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Splinemodel:
I think, when it debuts, the PPC970 will be able to go toe-to-toe with anything from AMD or Intel, if not beat them outright. This is IBM we're talking about here, not Moto. IBM draws a lot of water in the computer world. I think enough to get a good compiler out within a year.</strong>

Never forget what Intel is. They are the dominant microprocessor manufacturer in the market. They will get to 90 nm first. And I highly doubt that the PPC 970 will outright outperform Intel chips by the time it is released. The only negative Intel has right now, which quickly can be mitigated, is that IA-32 and IA-64 are totally different and incompatible architectures. Someone messed up at Intel when they designed the IA-64 ISA. Otherwise, they have all the advantages: fab, marketing, and the chips to get them where they need to go.

The odd thing about the PPC 970 and the Power4 is that their clock rates are not that great for 14-stage pipeline processors. One would hope IBM will be able to squeeze 200 to 500 more MHz out of them. If their was just a little more MHz, then there is reason to be really optimistic, but as it stand now, it'll make Apple's marketing job just a little bit easier.
post #279 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by Outsider:
It also suspiciously looks like the GX bus already used on the POWER4 but will some modifications (like DDR).</strong>

I think you're more correct than me. They did have to put in quite a few features into the GX bus to support processor bus type features though.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

This could also be a hybrid HT/GX bus. How about the idea that IBM is making the controller chip (memory controller, PCI controller, ethernet) and Apple will incorporate it into its motherboard? Apple has done this before when a radically new processor came out such as the G3. Apple used the Motorola made MPC106 memory/PCI controller in the beige G3 as well as the B&W. I could safely assume that IBM has a controller project going on in tandem with the 970 project to be released together. This would help Apple out a lot and it would let them release machines as soon as the processor is available in quantity for them. And while they sell these machines they can work on their own proprietary controllers in house in the mean time.
post #280 of 490
DaveGee, pray tell, pray tell....
"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
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