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 2

post #41 of 490
"As the first in a new family of high-end PowerPC processors"

This bodes well in their being a future varient suitable for portables...if true...then there will be no need for moto


------------

Hello Moto <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #42 of 490
I like the confirmation of the 6,4GB/sec bus, running at 900Mhz...

Can't wait to do some protein folding on that thing!

How much faster than my 600mhz ibookG3? Mmmm...
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Reply
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Reply
post #43 of 490
Some tidbits from the <a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html" target="_blank">IBM press release</a>.

[quote]As the first in a new family of high-end PowerPC processors, the chip is designed for initial speeds of up to 1.8 gigahertz, manipulating data in larger, 64-bit chunks and accelerating compute-intensive workloads like multimedia and graphics through specialized circuitry known as a single instruction multiple data (SIMD) unit.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]IBM plans to pack performance and new features into the chip using ultra-thin 0.13-micron circuitry (nearly 800 times thinner than a human hair), constructed of copper wiring and about 52 million transistors based on IBMs efficient silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]IBM plans to make the PowerPC 970 chip available next year.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Running at a speed of up to 900 megahertz, the bus can deliver information to the processor at up to 6.4 gigabytes per second, to help ensure that the high-performance processor is fed data at sufficient speeds.<hr></blockquote>
post #44 of 490
If this chip was eventually manufactured on a .09-micron process, that would lower the price, correct? And make it viable for portable use?
The grass is always greener above the septic tank
Reply
The grass is always greener above the septic tank
Reply
post #45 of 490
Something that caught my eye:

The PPC 970 will begin on a 130 nm process. I remember that this chip foundry it's being fabbed at will be starting at 130 nm, but will soon migrate to 90 nm. If the PPC 970 is included in the migration to 90 nm, then the speed should scale VERY nicely, and we may even see this chip in Powerbooks.

I'm still down about the timeline for it's introduction. MWSF04 is just too damn long, I can't imagine how Apple will keep their Powermac sales up for much longer with the ever-increasing performance gap. Something must give sooner or later.

I'm very hopeful that IBM is giving a pessimistic timeline for the PPC970's introduction so that it doesn't affect Apple's sales as much. From a marketing perspective, it would help Apple's Powermac sales more if potential buyers thought this IBM CPU was a long ways off. After all, fall 03 is only a prediction, and if IBM and Apple could get their sh!t together sooner then all the better.

If reports of OS X running on PPC970 prototypes in March are correct, then I fail to see why it would take another full year to get this CPU up and running. Apple can get a mobo designed around the prototype CPUs, and IBM can ramp up to full production by the end of this year (the damn plant opened in mid-summer!). So Apple could announce PPC970 Towers at MWSF03, and ship in Feb or March.

I know I'm setting myself up for a disappointment, but it's difficult to see how Apple could keep their Powermac sales afloat without the leap in performance that the PPC970 promises.
post #46 of 490
[quote] Quote 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<hr></blockquote>


From what source do we know, and what stats that we have leads us to believe the power4 is rip roaring fast @1.3GHz?


I have never seen any power4 benchmarks vs. intel, or anything for that matter. Does anyone have a link?


Also, on the first page of the thread there was a link to a <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,55722,00.html" target="_blank">Wired</a> Article that said the new IBM processors did 8 instructions at once rather than the 3 that the current G4's do now. Is this true? I didn't notice that information anywhere other than the wired article. :cool:
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #47 of 490
From slashdot.org:

1. Alpha 21264C at 1250MHz
2. Itanium2 at 1000MHz
3. POWER4 at 1300MHz
4. SPARC64 V at 1350MHz
5. POWER4 at 1100MHz
6. Alpha 21264C at 1224MHz
7. Alpha 21264C at 1000MHz
8. Pentium 4 at 2.8 GHz
9. Pentium 4 at 2.66 GHz
10. Pentium 4 at 2.53 GHz

Now I don't care about x86 in this list. What I want to know is to see the new P4PC (my new acronym ) chip on that list. Because Power4 has dual core + high L3, and the P4PC has higher clock speed.

These are also FP calcs:

<a href="http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/spec/specfp2000.html" target="_blank">http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/spec/specfp2000.html</a>

HTH,
post #48 of 490
thanks for those marks.

Being that Power4 is dual cored does that mean that some instructions are doubled? Will "P4PC" being a single core Processor reduce performance greatly?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #49 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by naden:
<strong>From slashdot.org:

1. Alpha 21264C at 1250MHz
2. Itanium2 at 1000MHz
3. POWER4 at 1300MHz
4. SPARC64 V at 1350MHz
5. POWER4 at 1100MHz
6. Alpha 21264C at 1224MHz
7. Alpha 21264C at 1000MHz
8. Pentium 4 at 2.8 GHz
9. Pentium 4 at 2.66 GHz
10. Pentium 4 at 2.53 GHz

Now I don't care about x86 in this list. What I want to know is to see the new P4PC (my new acronym ) chip on that list. Because Power4 has dual core + high L3, and the P4PC has higher clock speed.

These are also FP calcs:

<a href="http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/spec/specfp2000.html" target="_blank">http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/spec/specfp2000.html</a>

HTH,</strong><hr></blockquote>

All the SPEC stuff on the Power4 is with a SINGLE CORE version of the Power4. Most people forget to mention that and/or don't realize that.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #50 of 490
Thread Starter 
So will the Power4 "Lite" aka 970 @1800mhz be faster than the Power4 @1300mhz?
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 #51 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>So will the Power4 "Lite" aka 970 @1800mhz be faster than the Power4 @1300mhz?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Total speculation....

If you are talking about 'just spec benchmarks' then yes I could see IBM being able to do this.

The GPUL could bench out better in the SPEC test since this new CPU is a single core chip (I was kinda surprised about that). In real world usage a DUAL or QUAD core Power4 would KILL this chip.

[ everyone should know that all the standard quoted SPEC numbers are for SINGLE CORE versions of the Power4 (not the dual or quads) so when someone says 'the intel/amd are close to beating the power4 you can feel free to throw that back in their face' ]

I'm not sure I have this totally right but....

IBM started the Power4 as a DUAL CORE cpu and then as the process went on they found a way to make use of 'bad' two core chips. When the 'bad' part of the CPU was only affecting a single core IBM started to market single core versions of the Power4.

One would hope that as IBM had more time to look at the building process they should have been able to produce more 'good' (dual or quad core) CPUs and less and less single core (bad) chips.

If IBM is at that stage where they don't really have all that many 'bad' (single core) CPUs comming off the line they need to do one of two things.

CRIPPLE a GOOD dual core CPU. (not too smart)
Have something else to use IN PLACE OF a single core Power4.

Now they have that 'something else' in the form of the GPUL. Faster than a 'single core' power4 but still keeps the dual-quad core Power4s on the top of the list for big iron power servers.

This is just me thinking aloud so take it for what it's worth but it seems to make sense.

Dave

[ 10-14-2002: 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 #52 of 490
At certain tasks most likely. For example in common tasks like web browsing, word processing, excel, etc. But for highly optimized multiprocessor apps, not.
post #53 of 490
Ok, replies to a few things at once.

1) dual cores v. dual chips: Dual cores will make for lower yields thus increasing costs. Dual core also locks the consumer into making a decision at buy time, instead of just buying a board and putting in another cpu if you want later. Well, I suppose apple is already like this, but in the pc world where you build your own, it's a nice choice to have.

2) "If reports of OS X running on PPC970 prototypes in March are correct, then I fail to see why it would take another full year to get this CPU up and running. "

And Itanium has been in development for ten years, hammer for a few years (with initial silicon shown much more than a year before it will launch)... These things take time. Also, they have a prototype working. yippee. Now they need to take that prototype, scale it, while maintaining yields. As amd is finding out, it's not a trivial task.

3) as for the move to .09 being beneficial... it may be, but it may also reveal some hotspots on the die that were spaced out more on .13, so they were ok, that become problematic on .09. Thus the processor needs a re-layout, and be tweaked as necessary, before it can be mass produced at speeds. The thoroughbred A to tbred B transition is a stellar example of this.

4 "If one 1.8GHz PPC970s isn't enough to clobber Intel and AMD, two should do the job."

As if multi-processor xeons, athlon mps, or hammers wouldn't turn that right back around.

neye
post #54 of 490
I too am excited as anyone, however I have 2 questions...

1. Will the introduction of these chips into PowerMacs (the obvious first choice) make the iMac, eMac, iBook and PowerBook look like absolute dogs and put people of purchasing them until an upgrade is made to them? Would this situation be avoided by the introduction of a workstation class machine or would it just be pointless...

2. Do you think that IBM and Apple may have an agreement that the 970 goes on release for general sale in Q3 2003 but that Apple get 1st dibs and can use it in Q1 maybe Q2?......
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 #55 of 490
Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?
post #56 of 490
This interests me most

[quote] IBM plans to make the PowerPC 970 chip available next year.<hr></blockquote>

Now I understand that this doesn't mean that we will get it in January, but I think that (as per G4 introduction) it may be a little earlier than many people are giving IBM credit for.
post #57 of 490
Hm.. According to the specFp2000 site posted above, the power4 is about 1.33 times faster at 1300 MHz that a 2,8 GHz P4. Allthough that isnt bad at all, the PPC970 need to be able to scale fast enough to keep up with P4 and Itaniums and Hammers when they come out.

Allthough I have confidence in IBM being able to do just that.

However, I guess 1.3 times speed increase + altivec + faster bus speed (900Mhz - WOW), means a 2-3 times better performance that the "fastest pentium in the world", in Apple marketing

I think we have some Photoshop/Shake demos ahead of us at MacWorlds

Anyways, Im too excited about this news! I just hope this will be announces in january, and avaliable in march. (Yes, I just love to be able to be dissapointed in 5 months time

Well, well.. Enough rambling

FAST EDIT: the Power4 at 1100 MHz only seems to be 1.05 times faster than the 2.8 GHz P4. Still good for being 2.5 times "slower" MHz wise...

.: BoeManE :.

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: BoeManE ]</p>
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #58 of 490
Thread Starter 
Dave Gee: yes I was just talking SPEC speeds.

What is Apple going to sell in the mean time. How many people are going to buy PM's until this machine arrives? I should think Apple are worried and estatic at the same time.
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 #59 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Gambit:
<strong>Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am a little but it does give System makers more flexibility in configurations. And a future 980 or 990 may have dual cores and even quad once moved to 90nm or lower.
post #60 of 490
did anyone catch that bit about the processor supporting up to a 900Mhz bus?




edit - nevermind, I see lots of replies were posted between when I started reading and when i made this post.

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: rogue27 ]</p>
Prosecutors will be violated
Reply
Prosecutors will be violated
Reply
post #61 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>

I'm still down about the timeline for it's introduction. MWSF04 is just too damn long, . . . I'm very hopeful that IBM is giving a pessimistic timeline for the PPC970's introduction so that it doesn't affect Apple's sales as much. . .

</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are a few ways to hope for something sooner, but don't count on it and get discouraged.

First, no one knows better than Apple how desperately they need this IBM 970. I believe Apple will have the PowerMacs sitting in the manufacturing plant, just waiting for chips to come from IBM.

Second, Apple may introduce the new PowerMacs with two low-end G4 models, and two high-end G5 (IBM 970) models. The highest model may be a new workstation class PowerMac. In this way, those who do not need the highest performance will buy one of the low-end G4 models and keep up sales. Those who wish the G5 will wait, as others did for the 1.25 GHz models.

Third, if you read very carefully, IBM does not say we have to wait that long. Even if the IBM 970 ships to Apple manufacturing in March, the 970 will still 'be available' in the second half of 2003. IBM never said that the 970 will 'not be available until' the second half of 2003. I am sure IBM would love to state that everything went so smoothly that they shipped early.

(Edit add) Fourth, in the official IBM news release, they say available next year. The second half of 2003 was from the Forbes story.

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
post #62 of 490
[quote]All the SPEC stuff on the Power4 is with a SINGLE CORE version of the Power4. Most people forget to mention that and/or don't realize that.<hr></blockquote>

Where does it say this?
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
post #63 of 490
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Gambit:
<strong>Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not at all. This chip is going to put Apple at the top of the desktop tree. It is the start of a new family of chips, IMB have said so, and not only will it scale n terms of Mhz but it will also move to 0.09 later on. I would also expect dual core versions to appear at a later date, although how altivec works with dual core I am not sure.

This is the best new we could have hoped for. A real future and a partnership with IBM, IBM couldn't give a dam about Windows, and now they have a direct interest in the sucess of a different platform.
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 #64 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>
Second, Apple may introduce the new PowerMacs with two low-end G4 models, and two high-end G5 (IBM 970) models. The highest model may be a new workstation class PowerMac. In this way, those who do not need the highest performance will buy one of the low-end G4 models and keep up sales. Those who wish the G5 will wait, as others did for the 1.25 GHz models.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This occurred to me. Perhaps the 970 will make its debut in Xserve or a new workstation class PowerMac. I guess it could take years for it to trickle down to the mid range and low end PowerMacs, yet alone the consumer machines.
post #65 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>

Where does it say this?</strong><hr></blockquote>

" The figures for the 1-way, single core Power4 is for the IBM eServer pSeries 630, the latest Power4 based system and the first to be available in 1-way (one processor core) and 2-way (2 processor cores) configurations. The pSeries 630 offers the strongest direct comparison between an HP Itanium 2-based server or workstation and a similar system equipped with IBM Power4 processors. IBM's SPEC results were submitted for a single core."

IBM's SPEC results were submitted for a single core.

<a href="http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/architecture/speccpu.html" target="_blank">http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/architecture/speccpu.html</a>

An even better quote at the bottom of that page... That goes along with my speculation that a single core GPUL **COULD** out run (err out SPEC) a single core Power4 processor and not hurt IBMs sales.

"The IBM figures for the 1.3GHz Power4 are for a uni-processor IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo running AIX 5L V5.1 with 128MB of L3 cache and 64GB of RAM running AIX 5L V5.1 a configuration that no one would purchase in practice. It is benchmark-friendly but impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration."

So to re-word things... The SPEC numbers you see on the Power4 are from a single core Power4 and while it is benchmark-friendly it's impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration. The Power4 is usually configured with DUAL or QUAD cores.

Dave

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]

[ 10-14-2002: 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 #66 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Gambit:
<strong>Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was, until I read it was fully capable.

We could see quad or octo Macs
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
post #67 of 490
although i belive they will, wouldn't it be funny if apple didn't use this chip at all...a thread for nothing (not that its never happened before)

...getting back on track though I just want to through in the fact that apple said as of jan '03 no macs will be running OS 9 right? did we ever figure out why? hardware woudl support it unless they...for some reason update firmware and pull support of it.

I know this is WAY to optimistic and it won't happen bout who here would love if THIS CHIP is the reason for no more 9? I would love to buy a new apple comp with the profits made from their rising fromhis new machine (i'm 16 and poor ass poor, apple stock rises i have money)
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
0 People Found This Reply Helpful
Reply
post #68 of 490
More grist for the mill:

<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/10/14/financial0309EDT0011.DTL" target="_blank">[/URL] Gate confirms Apple as buyer of the PPC970.</a>

(I know, most of us here are saying, "Duh!")

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: mrmister ]

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: mrmister ]</p>
post #69 of 490
What if this processor isnt even for macs?

-The Devil
post #70 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by RodUK:
<strong>

This occurred to me. Perhaps the 970 will make its debut in Xserve or a new workstation class PowerMac. I guess it could take years for it to trickle down to the mid range and low end PowerMacs, yet alone the consumer machines.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not as pessimistic. If Apple does have the G4 in the lower end PowerMacs, I believe it will be short lived. The G4 would be for immediate sales, while there is a longer wait for the 970 model PowerMacs. Also, the supply of IBM 970 chips may be limited initially. This is just one possible option in any case.
post #71 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>All the SPEC stuff on the Power4 is with a SINGLE CORE version of the Power4. Most people forget to mention that and/or don't realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

True, but...

Sorry to piss on the barbecue guys, but in those SPEC benchmarks the POWER4 uses all of the L3 cache in all of the processor modules, making it 32 MB. And the latest Pentium 4 can beat it on integers (or was it FPU? can't really remember which one)...

Personally I think this is too little and way too late, although I'd like to be proven wrong...

ZoSo
post #72 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by firelark:
<strong>What if this processor isnt even for macs?

-The Devil</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah they may even be for Dell's! Seriously, except for IBM, who else would even be interested? It's definitely not an embedded processor.

edit: How could i forget! Maybe it's for the new Amiga!

[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
post #73 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>

I am not as pessimistic. If Apple does have the G4 in the lower end PowerMacs, I believe it will be short lived. The G4 would be for immediate sales, while there is a longer wait for the 970 model PowerMacs. Also, the supply of IBM 970 chips may be limited initially. This is just one possible option in any case.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I sure hope you're right!

I'm not sure what to make of the following quote:

Chekib Akrout, vice president of microprocessor development at IBM Microelectronics, said the PowerPC 970 will have plenty of application now in low-end servers and will have uses in high-end desktops in the future.

Perhaps he has no more knowledge of Apple's intentions than we do, or was talking about IBM's intentions.
post #74 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by ZoSo:
<strong>

True, but...

Sorry to piss on the barbecue guys, but in those SPEC benchmarks the POWER4 uses all of the L3 cache in all of the processor modules, making it 32 MB. And the latest Pentium 4 can beat it on integers (or was it FPU? can't really remember which one)...

Personally I think this is too little and way too late, although I'd like to be proven wrong...

ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay...

So a Power4 running at 1.3Ghz is FINALLY being being beat by a brand new P4 on ONE of the SPEC scores. Ummm exactly how fast does that P4 have to go to 'just' beat the numbers? 2.8Ghz.

Hmm

a 2.8Ghz P4 can finally beat a 1.3Ghz Power4 that has one (or 3) cores tied behind it's back! Well whoop-d-do we should buy Intel a milkshake!!

The config used in those oft quoted SPEC results ARE A SINGLE CORE Power4 a config that even HP says isn't a likely shipping config due to the cost of the rest of the box. (see my quotes above)

Now we have the PPC970 that is based on the Power4 and is running @ 1.8Ghz single core ONLY. I don't know the numbers but I have a feeling this new CPU could very well pass the SPEC numbers on the IBM Power4 and at the same time NOT hurt the sales of IBM big iron since after all a single core Power4 isn't a realistic system to sell anyway.

Dave

[ 10-14-2002: 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 #75 of 490
[quote]So to re-word things... The SPEC numbers you see on the Power4 are from a single core Power4 and while it is benchmark-friendly it's impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration. The Power4 is usually configured with DUAL or QUAD cores.<hr></blockquote>

The pSeries 690 isn't noted as having a single core; only the 630. How I read it is that a regular Itanium configuration beats a 'rigged' Power4 in floating point and integer calculations. The single-core Power4 at 1 GHz competes with a 2.5 GHz Pentium 4 in FPU but is upstaged in integer operations. In addition, the Power4 still has a huge L3 cache.

For the PowerPC 970, you can multiply the clockspeed of the single core Power4 by 1.8, take away most of its L3 cache, and add AltiVec. For next year's Pentium 4, you can multiply the clockspeed by about 1.8, keep the cache, and add 'HyperThreading'. Without any real knowledge of processors or any real specifics on the PowerPC 970, it looks to me like it will allow Apple to catch up to Intel (assuming that SPEC benchmarks are relevant, which they probably aren't).

We need real world performance data!!
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
post #76 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>We need real world performance data!! </strong><hr></blockquote>

I hope we get that tomorrow... Everything today has been nice but just a tad lite in substance. 24 hours.. 24 hours...

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #77 of 490
Thread Starter 
If this chip isn't comming until the second half of 2003. Why were the PM's updated with the odd DDR mod. Clearly the 970 will need a new logic board and will support DDR properly, and what is going to happen in January to make new machines OS X only?

A lot of the current promotions expire on the 31st December?

Are we going to get say a 1.4 G4++ that supports DDR properly and then another new machine later in the year.

How much are Apple going to charge for the Power4 Lite 970 machine?

This announcement raises more questions than it answers.

[ 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 #78 of 490
It's been a while since I've posted on AIBB. How are you all doing?

So.. question. Is this the light at the end of the tunnel? Can I start drinking?
post #79 of 490
The bit that caught my eye in the Wired article is that the thing can address 4 terabytes of memory! Man, that's a whole lotta DIMM slots... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

This all plays together very, very nicely indeed: IBM has for a while been interested in getting out of M$'s bed (PC-DOS still rankles, huh?) and has been making noises about getting into the Linux market. Which basically means the *nix market, including our own dear Aquafied OS.

So, we have Big Blue and Apple hand-in-hand on one side of the fence, dragging the open-source community along with them while M$ spend their time tidying up their legacy code and plugging their legions of security holes.

Exciting times, my friends.
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
post #80 of 490
[quote]Originally posted by Overhope:
<strong>So, we have Big Blue and Apple hand-in-hand on one side of the fence, dragging the open-source community along with them while M$ spend their time tidying up their legacy code and plugging their legions of security holes.

Exciting times, my friends. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I couldn't have said it any better.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
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