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 8

post #281 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>DaveGee, pray tell, pray tell....</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wish I could but I can't... but here's a hint. Someone who posted on this very (edit) err last page seems to be on to something... He didn't write a ton of words but what he did say could indeed come true.

edit.. damn I'm on the next page...

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 #282 of 490
Could you at least tell who this someone who posted is?
post #283 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

I wish I could but I can't... but here's a hint. Someone who posted on this very (edit) err last page seems to be on to something... He didn't write a ton of words but what he did say could indeed come true.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

C'mon, stop with this Moki style tease answer. Just tell us...
post #284 of 490
My guess would be that DaveGee is referring to the fact that the PPC 970 is the first in a line of PPCs from IBM. Either that or Stoo speculated that a dual core GPUL is still in the works.

Personally I believe this will be the uber chip for wich we have been waiting. Yes, we've waited a long time, and yes we thought others would be the saviour new processor. But this time, I believe the hype.

My thoughts are that Apple realized they were in a heap of trouble with MOT's imbedded direction long before us users did. It worked out great for the mobile market, but has not been as high performance and professional users require. Therefore, Apple entered an agreement with IBM to produce the 970 (and other) prosessor. But remember, Apple sells several lines of computers, desktop and protable, to the professional and consumer marketplace. I believe they have a roadmap for moving the entire product line forward.

Also people like to think that costs do matter to the professional market. I can attest that it does. Profit margins are thin everywhere and saving money is just as important to film/animation/audio and other producers. That's why ILM has moved to cheaper Linux boxes, and why movie makers are filming more and more in Canada, etc. I think Apple will put the PPC 970 in the PowerMac and charge basically the same prices. I have used Macs since they came out in 1984 and the PowerMac line has always cost approximatly the same.

I also think that Steve Jobs would love to see Pixar using racks of XServe machines as render farms. Great advertising for Apple. This is probably a central reason the XServe was developed. Once dual 970s are dropped in there, the cost/performance ratio should make it a viable machine for animation firms.

And to Lemon Bon Bon. You mention Lightwave often and cite very long render times. I suggest you look at Electric Image <a href="http://www.electricimage.com/." target="_blank">http://www.electricimage.com/.</a> While less often used, it has the fastest renderer on the planet. Also they way they reworked network rendering each processor is seen as a render machine, not just each machine. Render times on Dual CPU machines are almost doubled with this ability.

Sorry for rambling. I'm pretty excited about all this. This year will be tough on Apple (they just reported thier first loss in 2 years). But next year should turn things around.

Terry
post #285 of 490
TBoxman, I'm glad someone took the time to follow my very simple clue. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #286 of 490
It looked to me like the major reason for their loss this quarter was an investment write down. Who hasn't had their investments drop over the last couple of years?

There should really be only one thread on this topic, but I'll copy-and-paste my other post in here too:

"Consider that the POWER4 was ~172 million transistors on a 0.18 micron process. Expensive, yes, but IBM did it. Now consider that the new GPUL is only 52 million. That means there is room for 3.3 GPUL's on one chip at 0.18 microns. IBM will have 0.09 available in the not-too-distant future so putting 2 or 4 GPUL cores on a single chip won't merely be possible, it'll be economical.

Now consider the IBM research paper published a while back that proposes "The Cellular Approach" where one chip of up to a billion transistors is a network of processor cores. In a billion transistors they could fit at least 16 GPUL cores.

IBM says that GPUL is good for up to 16-way SMP. Hmmm... perhaps we have something approximating a roadmap here?"
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #287 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>It looked to me like the major reason for their loss this quarter was an investment write down. Who hasn't had their investments drop over the last couple of years?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, Apple believes that the decline is temporary. The losses come mostly from reduced sales in Europe, Japan and the educational market. Those are all down 15-20%.

[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
post #288 of 490
I don't hold my breath on the new 970.

The 970 should available at the end of 2003, right?
At speeds up to 1.8GHz, right?
900MHz FSB, right?
2.9MIPS/ MHz, right?

The G4 should reach 1.8GHz at the end of 2003, right?
133MHz FSB today, at the end of the year maybe 800MHz (RIO), right?
2.3MIPS/ MHz, right?

Thats an advantage of 2.9/ 2.3 = 1.26 points , right?

It doesn't impress me.

I hope i am wrong!
The only advantage of the 970 is 64bit and the SPEC benchmark!
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
post #289 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Fat Freddy:
<strong>I don't hold my breath on the new 970.

The 970 should available at the end of 2003, right?
At speeds up to 1.8GHz, right?
900MHz FSB, right?
2.9MIPS/ MHz, right?

The G4 should reach 1.8GHz at the end of 2003, right?
133MHz FSB today, at the end of the year maybe 800MHz (RIO), right?
2.3MIPS/ MHz, right?

Thats an advantage of 2.9/ 2.3 = 1.26 points , right?

It doesn't impress me.

I hope i am wrong!
The only advantage of the 970 is 64bit and the SPEC benchmark!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have yet to see confermation that the G4 will move to rapid Io or get a fsb that will support DDR ram. From what I have read the G4 will move to a consumer level chip that continues to lag Intel in performance. The only saving grace to it right now is its price and MP capabilities.
post #290 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"I think 2004 Mac Janworld is worst case scenario.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps. But it's also the most likely scenario. Unless of course, IBM has been asked to hint that 2003 would be optimistic for new machines with their product.

[quote]<strong>
It sounds to me like Apple told Moto to take their G5 and shove it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What G5? Aside from the wild rumors, we have no actual evidence that such a program ever really existed. Oh, we do have some extremely vague roadmaps, etc. I think it's more like Apple would be the only customer for a Mot G5. Considering Mot's financial troubles, I doubt they could justify the R&D just for an Apple only product. IBM's situation is different. They don't have to create a complex chip, all they have to do is pair down an already complex chip. Generally speaking, this is a much easier task. IBM will be able to use the new chip in it's own servers as well.

[quote]<strong>
Meanwhile, Apple uses the same G4s for now...does dual...minor architecture improvements.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yup, MOT will milk the G4 for all it's worth over the next couple years before they fade into oblivion. You have to figure that the G4 will be in low end (but high volume) machines for a few years to come.

[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not exactly how it works. Moving a chip to a new process is not a simple task. It often involves remapping the layout of the chip due to hot spots and interference that wasn't an issue on the bigger chip. Moving to .9u for the G4 is probably a year or two away at best.

[quote]<strong>
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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think Apple's going to have to stick with the dual G4 strategy as long as the G4 is in the PRO line. When the G5 (ppc970) comes out, it will be marketed (and rightly so) as being twice as fast as a G4, so duals won't be necessary. I'm sure Apple will always have at least 1 dual setup in it's lineup at all times though, including when the PPC970s come out.

Steve
post #291 of 490
SteveS wrote:

I think Apple's going to have to stick with the dual G4 strategy as long as the G4 is in the PRO line. When the G5 (ppc970) comes out, it will be marketed (and rightly so) as being twice as fast as a G4, so duals won't be necessary. I'm sure Apple will always have at least 1 dual setup in it's lineup at all times though, including when the PPC970s come out.
-----

I have to disagree here. If the PPC970 is twice as fast (which it should be) putting only one in a machine that used to be a dual processor machine would mean the machine would end up being no faster. At least in Apples "duals make up for the Mhz laps" marketing campagain. I tend to think that unless the GPUL is much more than twice as fast they will still need to put duals in.

We aren't trying to simply speed up the Macs in increments. We need to climb out of the speed hole we have fallen in. Electric Image (originally written on the Mac) is now cross platform and is rendering 2-3 times as fast on a PC as it is on the Mac. And this is from a VERY Mac friendly company.

Then again, if the PPC970 is constained, I could see Apple shipping single processor machines until the line could be revved to duals again.

Terry
post #292 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>
That's not exactly how it works. Moving a chip to a new process is not a simple task. It often involves remapping the layout of the chip due to hot spots and interference that wasn't an issue on the bigger chip. Moving to .9u for the G4 is probably a year or two away at best.</strong><hr></blockquote>

so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?

i really don't get that...
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #293 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>

so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?

i really don't get that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

No matter how incompetent we all think Motorola is, they know as well as other cpu manufacturers, they cannot stand still, especially when it comes to keeping up with the latest process. A 130nm G4 should be out soon enough and I think perhaps before MWSF. As far as what will be included, I don't know that. My guess would be they keep MPX but add RapidIO and dump an L3 interface to reduce the amount of pins and allow for 512KB of L2 cache. A 16bit RapidIO port running at 500MHz should allow for 4GBps. This would make a good port to a dedicated generic memory controller. Apple can reuse most of their controller they have now that connects to MPX minus the memory part.

[ 10-17-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
post #294 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>

so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?

i really don't get that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well... if MOT knew of Apples move to IBM and they pretty much would have had to since it would been pretty strange for Apple not to 'sign up for' (or in some way officialy commit) MOTs next stage. Once MOT knew or suspected such a move happened how much effort do you think MOT would have given to the progress of the G4? I dunno if any of this is true to it sure is one way to explain why so very little has been done with the G4.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #295 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

I wish I could but I can't... but here's a hint. Someone who posted on this very (edit) err last page seems to be on to something... He didn't write a ton of words but what he did say could indeed come true.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's something that is best left as a surprise for people, I think.
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 #296 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

That's something that is best left as a surprise for people, I think. </strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I agree.

[pretending to be in on the big secret ]
post #297 of 490
Just floating a little fantasy here... Is it not likely that Apple will have been very aware of the effect of IBM's announcement on PM and PB sales? Apple tend to be very hot on this sort of thing. Is it not likely that Apple will have been working with IBM on this chip(s) for over two years now, may have already shoved money in IBM's direction, and will certainly be the largest buyer? Is it possible that IBM have been 'conservative' and less than fully open in their pronouncments? Is it possible that the disclosed timelines for sampling and full production of this chip or for the benefit of interested 3rd party customers and that Apple's first batch may arrive a little sooner? (the new fab comes on line in January after all). Is it possible that, considering all the little hints being dropped in this thread, that the 970 IS NOT APPLE'S CHIP?

Just a thought.......
post #298 of 490
NO
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #299 of 490
Oh...OK.
post #300 of 490
I wonder if this could be the basis for the bus on the 970 that Apple worked on: <a href="http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_abstract.asp?Volname=Issue%20%23155&SID=437& on=1&SourceID=00000377000000000000" target="_blank">http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_abstract.asp?Volname=Issue%20%23155&SID=437& on=1&SourceID=00000377000000000000</a>

It says that the customer can adapt the bus to their own choosing...
post #301 of 490
And...
<a href="http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16908,00.jpg" target="_blank">http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16908,00.jpg</a>

<a href="http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16900,00.jpg" target="_blank">http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/1/0,3363,sz=1&i=16900,00.jpg</a>


Seems as though IBM already has a companion chip in the wings... hmmm.

edit: took images off so this thread doesn't become a dog...

[ 10-18-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
post #302 of 490
I may not understand all the complexities of point-to-point bus architectures, but I nevertheless appreciate all the informed opinions here. AI would be of very little value without that participation.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #303 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Outsider:
Seems as though IBM already has a companion chip in the wings... hmmm.</strong>

It probably does for its own $10K workstations, but I think Apple is a different story. The image doesn't say anything about a core logic ASIC, just that the PPC 970 needs an ASIC that supports its bus. Perhaps Apple will take the current U2 chip in the PowerMacs and modify it for the 970 bus, and everything else stays the same. This would seem to me the best solution until a better core logic ASIC can be designed.
post #304 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by Outsider:
Seems as though IBM already has a companion chip in the wings... hmmm.</strong>

It probably does for its own $10K workstations, but I think Apple is a different story. The image doesn't say anything about a core logic ASIC, just that the PPC 970 needs an ASIC that supports its bus. Perhaps Apple will take the current U2 chip in the PowerMacs and modify it for the 970 bus, and everything else stays the same. This would seem to me the best solution until a better core logic ASIC can be designed.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Why not use the one IBM has already? Apple would only need to design a moderately not-to-complex peripheral controller (basic IO).
post #305 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by TBoxman:
<strong>I have to disagree here. If the PPC970 is twice as fast (which it should be) putting only one in a machine that used to be a dual processor machine would mean the machine would end up being no faster. At least in Apples "duals make up for the Mhz laps" marketing campagain. I tend to think that unless the GPUL is much more than twice as fast they will still need to put duals in.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Note that my comment was about putting duals in across the board for the pro line. As I said, I believe Apple will always have at least one dual for the high end. Additionally, the new chip will be "twice as fast" at the same clock speed and it will also be availabe at higher clock speeds.

[quote]<strong>
We aren't trying to simply speed up the Macs in increments. We need to climb out of the speed hole we have fallen in. Electric Image (originally written on the Mac) is now cross platform and is rendering 2-3 times as fast on a PC as it is on the Mac. And this is from a VERY Mac friendly company.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Also note that everytime people show an example of "how slow the G4 is", they use a 3D rendering program which is highly FP intensive. It's no secret that the G4, particularly the G4+ (7455 and above) is slow at FP. According to C't, the 1GHZ has a SpecFP score of only 187, while the new ppc970 will score 1050 or so at 1.8 ghz. Scaling for clock speed, that still gives the new chip a greater than 3x increase in FP performance at the same clock speed. Based on the RC5 numbers, it looks like the SIMD unit will still be powerful enough to give the PPC970 an advantage there as well. I'd expect the ppc970 to fall behind in INT performance just a bit to the equivalent P4 at the time of introduction. All said, the ppc970 won't crush the competition across the board, but it will compete nicely and put single processor Macs "back in the game".


[quote]<strong>
Then again, if the PPC970 is constained, I could see Apple shipping single processor machines until the line could be revved to duals again.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly.

[quote]Originally posted by krassy:
<strong>
so what have they all done from 1999 till now???? nothing? ... why is the g4 still produced at .18µ ?

i really don't get that...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

For starters, I don't want to put myself in a position of having to defend Motorola. However, over the past 3 years since the introduction of the G4, Motorola moved to a new production process (was .20u, now at .18u + SOI), and they changed the chip by deepening the instruction pipeline from 4 to 7 stages, added and int and altivec unit, etc. While this isn't great, it's not as if nothing has happend since 1999. I suspect the .13u + 512k L2 cache chips will be coming this January/February timeframe.

[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>
Well... if MOT knew of Apples move to IBM and they pretty much would have had to since it would been pretty strange for Apple not to 'sign up for' (or in some way officialy commit) MOTs next stage. Once MOT knew or suspected such a move happened how much effort do you think MOT would have given to the progress of the G4? I dunno if any of this is true to it sure is one way to explain why so very little has been done with the G4.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, I think Motorola does have incentive to continue pushing the G4. OTOH, they have no incentive to do any sort of desktop capable G5.

The G4 still has plenty of life left in it. I'd expect Apple to want to keep the G4 in the consumer machines for another year or two easily. If Motorola didn't keep the G4 attractive for the low end market, they could lose Apple's consumer line all together. They probably will eventually, but I'm sure they'll want to milk this design for as long as they can.

Steve
post #306 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>

Actually, I think Motorola does have incentive to continue pushing the G4. OTOH, they have no incentive to do any sort of desktop capable G5.

The G4 still has plenty of life left in it. I'd expect Apple to want to keep the G4 in the consumer machines for another year or two easily. If Motorola didn't keep the G4 attractive for the low end market, they could lose Apple's consumer line all together. They probably will eventually, but I'm sure they'll want to milk this design for as long as they can.

Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's sounds right : pushing the G4 design in his lattest developpement seems logical. Afterall this chip is the best embedded chip of the year 2001, a chip that brings Money to Mot. If they stop increasing the performance of this chip, many others customers like Cisco will search an other supplier.
post #307 of 490
Cisco is most likely going to go with the Motorola 'G5' 85xx series in the near future...

So for the next two years, I would expect the Mac consumer line to run on Motorola G4s, and the iBook might 'move up' to a Moto G4, or maybe IBM will hook up a VMX unit to the Sahara G3, and unlock the bus speed...

All in all, Moto is on its way out of the Apple spotlight...
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #308 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Outsider:
Why not use the one IBM has already? Apple would only need to design a moderately not-to-complex peripheral controller (basic IO).</strong>

Because they are or it is not suitable for Apple's needs. The current core logic ASIC for the Power4 machines does not support AGP, just PCI-X. It is not intregrated with Firewire, ethernet or ATA buses. It probably is too costly and consumes too much power.

It just seems to me that Apple's best option for now is to take the current "U2" ASIC, throw out the MPX bus support, add support for DDR 400 or DDR-2, add support for this new GX style bus, and integrate the various high bandwidth IO onto it.
post #309 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not confused, you didn't read the post I replied to. The single 1.8ghz uses-

[quote]At 1.8GHz, the PowerPC 970 will consume 1.3-volts and dissipate 42-Watts.<hr></blockquote>.

So a dual would be quite high around 60-80 if you double it. I wasn't talking about the 1.2ghz, I was talking about the 1.8ghz and it's 42 watts. I just think that's a lot of juice.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #310 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by Outsider:
Why not use the one IBM has already? Apple would only need to design a moderately not-to-complex peripheral controller (basic IO).</strong>

Because they are or it is not suitable for Apple's needs. The current core logic ASIC for the Power4 machines does not support AGP, just PCI-X. It is not intregrated with Firewire, ethernet or ATA buses. It probably is too costly and consumes too much power.

It just seems to me that Apple's best option for now is to take the current "U2" ASIC, throw out the MPX bus support, add support for DDR 400 or DDR-2, add support for this new GX style bus, and integrate the various high bandwidth IO onto it.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I don't think the GX bus is compatible with the bus used on the 970. For one thing the Power4 does not use a DDR version of the bus. Doesn't need to. The higher bandwidth stuff like memory has it's own controller. Therefore a controller chip for the 970 would have to be built from the ground up. And why not include AGP and PCI-X support into it especially if it is to be used as a low cost solution for IBM as well as Apple? Well time will tell as soon as IBM releases info on this controller. And Apple can always put firewire and ethernet on the peripheral controller with out giving up too much performance than if it was directly located on the main controller.
post #311 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Outsider:
I don't think the GX bus is compatible with the bus used on the 970. ... Therefore a controller chip for the 970 would have to be built from the ground up. And why not include AGP and PCI-X support into it especially if it is to be used as a low cost solution for IBM as well as Apple?</strong>

Perhaps. But you have to keep in mind that IBM will be using the PPC 970 in $10K workstations and servers. They'll have PCI-X, but AGP is questionable let alone integration of high bandwidth I/O stuff (like 1394, Ethernet or ATA). But these machines will have different requirements than Apple's $1.5K to $3.5K machines.

<strong>Well time will tell as soon as IBM releases info on this controller. And Apple can always put firewire and ethernet on the peripheral controller with out giving up too much performance than if it was directly located on the main controller.</strong>

Yes, time will tell. It'll be a very long time.
post #312 of 490
What kind of memory would actually support a FSB of 450MHz? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
post #313 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Fat Freddy:
<strong>What kind of memory would actually support a FSB of 450MHz? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Dual channel memory, Intel and nvidia are already make chipset that support this feature.
post #314 of 490
<strong>Originally posted by Fat Freddy:
What kind of memory would actually support a FSB of 450MHz? :confused: </strong>

Rambus A nice little dual channel 450 MHz DRDRAM solution can pump 3.6 GB/s. Quad channel will go 7.2 GB/s.

Otherwise if they can have a 9:4 processor bus to memory bus ratio, then DDR 400 or DDR-2 will work, dual channel or otherwise. Or the easier solution is to only use processor clock rates that will work at lower integer multiples.

[ 10-19-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #315 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by THT:

Rambus A nice little dual channel 450 MHz DRDRAM solution can pump 3.6 GB/s. Quad channel will go 7.2 GB/s.

Otherwise if they can have a 9:4 processor bus to memory bus ratio, then DDR 400 or DDR-2 will work, dual channel or otherwise. Or the easier solution is to only use processor clock rates that will work at lower integer multiples.

[ 10-19-2002: Message edited by: THT ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Rambus, of course, but Rambus is game over, i think
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

and

DDR-RAM (PC3200) is supporting a 400MHz FSB

What's about DDR-II :confused:

thx
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
post #316 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
Not confused, you didn't read the post I replied to.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You said:
"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."

That is quite wrong, or a typo.

[ 10-19-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #317 of 490
Not certain whether anyone has posted this link as yet and I don't think it adds anything new other than a specific ApplePI mention, but it's worth reading just for more colour.

<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,638499,00.asp" target="_blank">www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,638499,00.asp</a>
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
post #318 of 490
From IBM's recent 8-k filing:
"The new 300 millimeter plant is in test production and on schedule. We have
orders that would fully load the facility well into midyear of 2003. From what
we can tell about our competition, we may be the only manufacturer capable of
130 and 90 nanometer technologies."

Is this the 970 plant? If so, anyone care to put this blurb in context of when the 970 is expected to show-up in a Mac?
post #319 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Fat Freddy:
<strong>I don't hold my breath on the new 970.

The 970 should available at the end of 2003, right?
At speeds up to 1.8GHz, right?
900MHz FSB, right?
2.9MIPS/ MHz, right?

The G4 should reach 1.8GHz at the end of 2003, right?
133MHz FSB today, at the end of the year maybe 800MHz (RIO), right?
2.3MIPS/ MHz, right?

Thats an advantage of 2.9/ 2.3 = 1.26 points , right?

It doesn't impress me.

I hope i am wrong!
The only advantage of the 970 is 64bit and the SPEC benchmark!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, consider this then,

1. The PPC970 has not one, but TWO Altivec units. Altivec performance will be off the charts. Furthermore, the PPC970's altivec performance won't be choked by a slow bus....according to those who know about this sort of thing, the current G4 altivec quickly chokes because the MPX bus cannot feed it fast enough. So not only will a major bottleneck be removed, but an additional SIMD unit will be added. For altivec-optimized applications, the 970 will shame Pentium 4s, no doubt about it.

2. The typical trade-off for MHz is to lower the MIPS/MHz, partially by adding extra pipelines. Yet, the 970 clocks significantly faster than the G4, and STILL turns out more MIPS. Also, the 970 is going to debut at 1.8 GHz, probably on a 130 nm process. This leaves lots of room for scaling...IBM could migrate the 970 to 90 nm fairly quickly, and probably scale to 3 GHz within a year or so of the 970's introduction. In contrast, the G4 debuted at 400 MHz and is near the end of its life.

I think the PPC 970 is far, far superior to the G4, and it's going to be faster than x86 for some time after it's introduction. Maybe on par with x86 for FP caculations, but for any Altivec enabled tasks, the CPU is going to blow x86 away.

Apple was right all along about their focus on altivec....it's a secret weapon that has allowed Apple to keep up despite the disastrous G4, and it will enable Apple to smoke the competition when IBM finally begins fabbing the PPC.
post #320 of 490
The general concencus around here suggests that Apple will adopt the 970 for their high-end (or possibly a new ultra high-end) Mac and either use a scaled down version of the chip (or a G4) for consumer machines.

After reading all the reports, press releases and following these threads, I keep coming back to a theory i had which suggests that the 970 is *not* the high (or ultra high-end) processor, but instead, the chip intended for use within *consumer* (and possibly low-high-end) machines. The differences simply being the GHz or number of processors used.

That of course leads us to the question about Apple's high-end machines... It wouldn't seem unreasonable that Apple would decide to make its high-end machines (ultra high-end machines) equipped with a genuine Power4 chip.

This would make Apple's consumer models running in parallel speed (maybe slightly higher) with that of x86's highest-end systems while putting Apple's high-end leaps and bounds ahead.

It seems like a natural fit if you ask me.
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