Finally an interesting G5 story - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by Analogue bubblebath:
<strong>

The problem with using the G5 moniker to describe the 970 is that it implies that the 970 is merely an evolution of the G4, much like the G4 was an evolution of the G3.

The 970 is a completely different beast (64-bit ISA, derived from POWER4, different system bus, made exclusive by IBM, etc.), and because the developemnt of the desktop PPC has stagnated at Motorola, as a result, the "brand" G4 has become tainted, so it makes more sense, IMO, to use a different naming convention, one that indicates that PowerMacs (and Xserves, Tibooks, imacs, etc.) equipped with the 970 are a huge leap ahead in performance and features.</strong><hr></blockquote>


See I disagree, I see the G5 as meaning the next chip from Apple, the new chip, the next step. I don't think it has anything to do do with being the same family of chip, but if that's what it is, then the Powermac 970 is the most logical choice.

From a marketing standpoint, were Apple to execute properly, there could be substantial dividends to getting in bed with IBM.

Whether or not Apple has processor speed parity with Wintel, the overall perception that Wall Street, IT Professional/Department(s) and the Pro/Consumer space have, has been less than favorable for some time.

First and foremost from a PR standpoint, Apple is Apple and then there is everything else. With the advent of OS X, many serious programmers, scientist and IT professionals that have steered clear of Windows even, in favor of various Unices and the like are reconsidering their over all perception of Apple because of it's wholesale implementation of Unix.

While those of us that are Mac centric are only aware of Motorola where it impacts Apple, MOT has been in a slow and steady decline for some time. They've been undergoing managerial change and organizational restructuring for at least a few years now (And this was Apple's only source of chips). Wall Street was probably less suprised than Steve & Co. at Motorola's inability to deliver as the company has questioned it's own focus or lack thereof and glut. Needless to say, Wall Street would probably react quite favorably to IBM becoming the main source of Apple's processors. I'm sure IBM has a far better reputation for everything than MOT (comparable markets mind you) and perhaps even AMD (were looking great but lost + PR momentum in recent months).

Moreover, the venerable Power4's reputation is probably second only to the Alpha or at least to me it is. While most the world might not connect Apple and IBM as collaborators in terms of the G3, Apple needs to build on the connection of the
Power4 and the 970 (Power4 Lite) and get a whole brewed at IBM thing going. After all, no one was ever fired for recommending IBM.

Apple would be wise to dump the "G" moniker period. This would allow them a clean break. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the Super Computer that couldn't & stayed at 500 MHz forever while Intel/AMD started wagons a'circling. While they don't want to quite come out and say Motorola: the source of all our problems (potentially liable), they can say that IBM is the cure for all that ills them. The Power4 already has a brand Apple needs to build on that. They can even point out that if you thought Volicity Engine was bad, you should see us now kind of thing.

Imagine with Unix and Power4 in the same sentence, Apple kit starts to sound a bit like real iron. This would afford those who would, to feel they own a part of the Power4/5 franchise without paying the price which is probably why IBM found building a lite version of the Power4 so compelling anyway.

With Unix and IBM under the tent Apple's PR dept. has substantial bullets to sell. That would only leave Steve & Co. to consider creating alternative corporate type styling(s) if it's truly going to sale work stations or corporate machines. I could be wrong, but the current PRO models just don't quite meet the corporate dress code for computers. Maybe I'm wrong.

[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

It means Apple will only have a possible 50mhz speedbump for Jan or early 2003. This is the new moto mobo G4 and we will se it early 2003. The 970 is coming out fall of 2003. So while mac users will be running naked in the streets throwing bitten apples at everyone when the leaves are turning brown, we will be quietly saving up those apples when the flowers bloom.

hehe</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you are saying we will see the PPC7457 1Q-03? Motorola's internal time table says 2Q-03. Then if the PPC7457 is coming out in Jan why will we only see a 50Mhz speed jump? Motorola shows the 7457 going up to 1.8Ghz.

PowerMac GX970
PowerMac GX980
PowerMac GX990

Well, getting back to the thread, I believe that this is a leak and is correct. There is no motive to make this up and it is put together far to well.

Regarding the path, I thin it is likely that we will be dissapointed with the progress on pure Mghz until the 970 arrives. However, it does look as though even if we get a 1.3ghz MPC7457 in January the bus improvements will mean quite a jump in performance for some applications.

The road map seems to be quite clear, we are going to keep getting Moto-G4's until the PM's and PB's and xServes can swap to the 970, then we should see the eMac, iMac and iBook all adopt a new IBM G-3 with it's version of the velocity engine. at this point Motorola will be history for Apple.

We will all jump for joy, but Apple will be very vulnerable having only one supplier, IBM will hold all the cards when it comes to processor pricing, hence in my opinion Malarka. Malarka is there just to let IBM know that Apple isn't compleatly relient on them.

"We will all jump for joy, but Apple will be very vulnerable having only one supplier, IBM will hold all the cards when it comes to processor pricing, hence in my opinion Malarka. Malarka is there just to let IBM know that Apple isn't compleatly relient on them."
-------

Very good point indeed.

Hmm... The PowerPC 970's figures look very good. If it was available today. We could live with 'only' being 1.2 GHz behind intel as long as the benchmarks are right. If the PowerPC 970 was available today.

It is not.

Apple definitely needs more, or rather better, options.

About the naming, though, G4 stands for 'Generation 4 PowerPC Processor'. And it really was an extended G3 processor. So, yes, G5 would be okay for the PowerPC 970.

After rereading the article 2 more times I have decided that the claims being made by the author are quite believable and in context with current trends. All information listed seems to match what information is available at this time.
\tThe last part about marklar is great news. Apple needs to at the right moment, this moment being when apple has solid (being 970, DDR400, etc) hardware, release a x86 version of the Mac OS. For as we all know Windows sucks and with OS X at the right moment apple could steal a large market share from Mirco$oft.
\tI would also like to ask what Lagrande and Palladium are, for I have know idea. Does anyone know what these things are?
\t
Also, and this is directed to redkid, you claim to have known about the 970 before the fiasco over this chips started. I have no reason to doubt you, but could you not then let us know if this article is correct. For you seem to know much on the future of apple. In other words does this article sound correct to you? Thanks.

LaGrande and Palladium all in one place:

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/27047.html" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/27047.html</A>

Wouldn't you know it--Intel and MS

Oh sh*t that sounds just like 1984! No more free will. I can just imagine:

You turn your computer on only to see a big dollar sign saying "please activate your copy of windows". Then after going through an hour hassle you finally get to use it. ( oh wait Xp is already like that!) I think if Microsoft and intel really goes through with this it will help apple to the 10th degree. Windows users will come flocking for their free will. I began to shack just reading that column! Man I hate micro$oft! Hate them hate them hate them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! die die die die die...ok I think I need to get some sleep. lol I hope I don't have nightmares after this.

[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>
\t
Also, and this is directed to redkid, you claim to have known about the 970 before the fiasco over this chips started. I have no reason to doubt you, but could you not then let us know if this article is correct. For you seem to know much on the future of apple. In other words does this article sound correct to you? Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't know a lot but what info I came across during the summer (and no one seemed to believe me ) is- that Moto will have a new G4 with a new mobo design (not sure the #). Also, that is was intended for this past fall update but that it kept exploding due to heat. That's the possible explanation for the vents on the front of the towers. So this past update was gapper and that the G4 in jan should be a decent upgrade (not sure now). I was also told the IBM would be replacing moto in the fall. A dual boot machine with AMD in the mix was also mentioned as a "along with standard IBM boxen" would be released side by side possibly. The reasoning was that corporations want this from Apple to switch over, but either way, that an ongoing up to date version of X for x86 was real.

So to me, from what little one time info I have, this article is very, very believable.

[quote]Originally posted by MacJedai:
<strong>

Revisions ... maybe??</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but that just doesn't follow. Revisions explain why manufacturers push back a target date, but it doesn't explain a target date announcement that far away. For IBM to announce general distribution in 2H '03 would mean they either just taped out or expect to at the end of the year or so.

It just doesn't take a year to go from tape out to production.

Somebody has to be fibbing here.

[quote]Originally posted by ArkAngel:
<strong>

With Unix and IBM under the tent Apple's PR dept. has substantial bullets to sell.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your whole line of reasoning about IBM and naming the 970 Macs makes sense. I'd go so far as say IBM should make a consumer G4-like chip for Apple as well. I always wondered why the 970 numbering started so high. Maybe it is to leave room below for consumer chips in the family, like a 920 maybe?

The G3, G4, G5 naming has a simplicity to it. It would be nice to keep something like this going for the power 4 connection. Maybe GP4 or PL4. Too bad P4 is already taken.

hmm,..
How 'bout the B-1. As in the B-1 bomber.

mika.

Further thought for all this Intel speed comparison.

Intel is shortly gonna have to swallow its own advertising.

The Itanium runs at a much lower clock speed than the current P4. They are even begining to sell the name 'Intel' and not so much the clock speed. Dell, et al, are still doing a mighty job of it though.

Long story short. The 970 will begin @ about 1.2 and scale from there. In that time frame Intel will need to start really pushing the Itanium. It currently stands in prototype form of 1Ghz. If they don't they are gonna be in a crunch. The P4 will not get bigger for ever.

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: zaz ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
"We will all jump for joy, but Apple will be very vulnerable having only one supplier, IBM will hold all the cards when it comes to processor pricing, hence in my opinion <strong>Malarka. Malarka</strong> is there just to let IBM know that Apple isn't compleatly relient on them."
<hr></blockquote>

I think you’re spelling this code name incorrectly. I think it’s spelled Malarkey.

[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>

I think you’re spelling this code name incorrectly. I think it’s spelled Malarkey.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What does the codename stand for? What is Malarkey exactly?

Whatever they name it you can bet it will have '64' in the name. Why? Well P4 may run at twice the Hz but our chip is 64 bits and their chip is only 32!!!! So you see, no gap at all....


(ya, I know that's poop but do you think the PR flaks will care? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> )

[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>

I think you’re spelling this code name incorrectly. I think it’s spelled Malarkey.</strong><hr></blockquote>


That's a good one.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

ArchAngel, I agree with a lot of what you say. I personally think that Apple should license their OS to IBM for PowerPC corperate sales. This would include servers and desktops, but not 3rd party PowerPC computers. There is a little overlap in product between IBM and Apple, but they could work around and with this with design.

IBM would gain becouse they have a real market for PowerPC boxes in their enterprise solutions, and they keep the profits from the processor, from desktop units, in house as opposed to giving them to Intel. It also would allow them to break away from Microsoft to some degree, which they have signaled with their investment in Linex that they want to do. So IBM gets a polished OS for their Enterprise Solution buisness, instead of building one oneo Linex.

Apple would gain as well. IBM would have a renued interest in making the PowerPC a competative processor for the destop and low end server market. So Apple has a pertner in the platform instead of just a suplier. IBM and Apple use a common name for the processor, and they benefit from each others advertising in building the brand identity for the CPU.

In this IBM brings their strenghts to the platform (archetecture) and Apple brings theirs (Software solutions). Apple dosnt have the same threat in this alliance that they did with the clones becouse both companies offer higher end solutions in their markets, which meet in the middle, while covering the High-end server market all the way down to the low end consumer computer.

[quote]Originally posted by JCG:
<strong>ArchAngel, I agree with a lot of what you say. I personally think that Apple should license their OS to IBM for PowerPC corperate sales. This would include servers and desktops, but not 3rd party PowerPC computers. There is a little overlap in product between IBM and Apple, but they could work around and with this with design.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If this kind of "merger" will ever happen, I hope Apple only licenses OS X Server to IBM. Giving them the consumer version would be to risky, I guess.
But IBM is slowly transforming into a services/consulting provider. Hardware isn't very interesting to them anymore. So how about Apple making Hardware AND software for IBM?

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>

Regarding IBM, they may be shifting focus but that does not mean they are leaving the hardware behind them.

<a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20021126.php" target="_blank">NMR</a> just posted a peek into IBM's future and the outlook is low-end and blade servers, using chips that will scale to 6GHz but run cooler than Intel's offerings.

6GHz Xserve in a few years, tasty.

Screed

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>

OS X will be released for the x86 platforms next year, regardless what the processor road map is for Apple systems.

How could this cannibalize hardware sales, when there is a limited amount of hardware sales industry wide now? Think of the implications of releasing a fresh new UNIX-based OS for all of those corporate machines that are currently not being replaced by CIOs. Think of all the consumers who have no need or desire to upgrade their hardware. These are the same CIOs that are looking for an alternative to the steep licensing fees that they are paying for MS desktop applications. These are the same consumers who would easily spend $129 to update their hardware with an OS that provides them with all of the features OS X gives them.
Apple would make far more money replacing the existing OS's with OS X in these two markets alone than they would EVER lose in hardware revenue, period.
It will happen.

[quote]Originally posted by zaz:
<strong>Further thought for all this Intel speed comparison.

Intel is shortly gonna have to swallow its own advertising.

The Itanium runs at a much lower clock speed than the current P4. They are even begining to sell the name 'Intel' and not so much the clock speed. Dell, et al, are still doing a mighty job of it though.

Long story short. The 970 will begin @ about 1.2 and scale from there. In that time frame Intel will need to start really pushing the Itanium. It currently stands in prototype form of 1Ghz. If they don't they are gonna be in a crunch. The P4 will not get bigger for ever.

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: zaz ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

All the info I've seen says the 970 will start at 1.4ghz-1.8ghz not 1.2ghz.

[quote]Originally posted by Ti X:
<strong>Apple would make far more money replacing the existing OS's with OS X in these two markets alone than they would EVER lose in hardware revenue, period.
It will happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is your opinion. So, instead of buying $4000 Mac computers, people will buy $129 Mac OS X + a PC.

So for these people, Apple will end up losing money with the switch. (profit margins on a $4000 computer being more than $129).

The question is whether enough people who would have never bought a mac will buy OS X. (and not pirate it). This is open for debate... and that's why it's not clearly a win for Apple to switch to an OS-only company.

BeOS tried, and failed...
IBM tried, and failed (OS/2)...
NeXTSTep tried, and failed...

arn

[quote]Originally posted by arn:
<strong>

That is your opinion. So, instead of buying $4000 Mac computers, people will buy $129 Mac OS X + a PC.
...
BeOS tried, and failed...
IBM tried, and failed (OS/2)...
NeXTSTep tried, and failed...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think it would be '$129'. Either the client version would be sold for more like $200, or it would be the Server version only for $500. By restricting it to the Server version, you are targeting just the people that are a little antsy about the Doze-server client license prices. (AKA STEEP).

One other issue is that MOSX has roughly ZERO copy protection/serial number verification built in. Doze is far more restrictive. Apple is able to survive a fairly robust level of piracy of OSX on _their_ hardware... because they already made _some_ money on the hardware itself. If OSX-86 was released with the same level of copy protection as OSX-ppc has right now, they'd sell a few copies before it hit the p2p net, and not so many after that. The fact that Darwin, the underpinnings of OSX, is available as source makes it tough to guarantee (or come anywhere near guaranteeing) that OSX-86 would be locked to the specific boxes it is licensed to.

The blade server CPU going towards 6 GHz in the future sound nice if they end up in some Mac towers as well <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
If Apple can scrap all Motorola CPUs by using the bottom of the barrel for the books and iMacs even 1.0 to 1.2 GHz single 970 would be nice. Apple have been raving about the Velocity engine since 1999 and they still sell computers without it <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

So what if 7457 support a 200 MHz bus? I would like to see a comparison with a old G4 AGP upgraded with a dual 1GHz on its 100 MHz run alongside a current dual 1GHz (with a 167MHz bus). My guess is that the performance difference is marginal. The G4 does not need a new bus it needs to get on the other side of 2GHz.

Every 970 that Apple buy increase the importance they have for IBM and is a reason to work on the 9x0 line. Having a high end 970 a midrange G4+ and a low end of a G3 with Velocity Engine or other will pour money in CPUs that is not Apples future. The 970 may be the future and getting the bulk CPUs sales (iMac eMac, PB, iBook) in there is far better than dead ends. I assume that nobody assume that the future CPU for Apple is a G3 from IBM with a Altivec unit grafted on or a anything from Motorola <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

If Apple go for the 970 it is in their own interest to generate as much revenues for the 970 as possible.


Also the line up would be more easy to understand. We alredy have the problem with two Apple products with the same speedrating (MHz) is the same speed or very different to to +/-velocity engine. Adding a third CPU would make it even worse.

I hope that the G3 is out early next year (If Velocity Engine is the best thing since sliced bread why sell computers without it year after year?) Then in less than a year the G4 starts to be replaced by the 970. Replacing aggressively that is replacing even if the performance is only on par with the G4 just to invest in the new CPU! They did that in 1999 replacing the G3/350-400-450 with G4/350-400-450. Apple can not afford to repeat that experience <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: DrBoar ]</p>

[quote]Intel is shortly gonna have to swallow its own advertising.

The Itanium runs at a much lower clock speed than the current P4.<hr></blockquote>
Intel don't sell Itanium boxen to consumers--where the GHZ speed play works. Better to see what happens when Banias comes out and they sell lower or equal clock speed, but much improved battery life.

Hey guys,

I was reading through the posts in this thread and there are a couple of misunderstandings.

1) The AMD Opteron CPU has NOT been renamed to the Athlon 64. They are two separate CPUs. The Opteron is for Servers and the Athlon 64 is for desktop/mobile systems.

2) The PowerPC 970 CPU should hold its own just fine when it debuts. Many people in this thread are saying that at 1.8GHz, it will be too slow. You can't compare a 1.8GHz 64-bit PowerPC CPU to a 3.0GHz 32-bit Intel based CPU. Apples to oranges, big time. Look at all of the current 64-bit CPU's on the market. They all top out at just over 1GHz currently. So if IBM can ship this thing towards the middle of 2003 at the advertised 1.8GHz, it will be one of the fastest 64-bit CPU's out there.

That said, I really hope that IBM/Apple can get this chip out the door asap! Although, an Opteron based Mac WOULD be interesing!

Cheers!

From DrBoar:
[quote]
I assume that nobody assume that the future CPU for Apple is a G3 from IBM with a Altivec unit grafted on...
<hr></blockquote>

This is exactly what I've been hoping for in early 2003. If IBM can mass produce these at over 1 GHz -- perhaps multi-core -- the power, cost, and size would be perfect for most of Apple's line. This would include iMac, eMac, iBook and perhaps even PowerBook. Only the Server and PowerMac should immediately get the 970 once it is available.

[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>

Sorry, but that just doesn't follow. Revisions explain why manufacturers push back a target date, but it doesn't explain a target date announcement that far away. For IBM to announce general distribution in 2H '03 would mean they either just taped out or expect to at the end of the year or so.

It just doesn't take a year to go from tape out to production.

Somebody has to be fibbing here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, in one of my earlier posts on this thread, I said Apple has had samples since mid March of this year. I neglected to say that they got a second batch of samples in late July (these being a second revision of the chip), and that they're due to get a third batch very early next year. Now, I'm not saying that this last batch won't be just for various certifications and/or possibly sold as the acual item. After all, the project is supposed to end around the end of July or early August '03.

[quote]Originally posted by Locomotive:
<strong>From DrBoar:

This is exactly what I've been hoping for in early 2003. If IBM can mass produce these at over 1 GHz -- perhaps multi-core -- the power, cost, and size would be perfect for most of Apple's line. This would include iMac, eMac, iBook and perhaps even PowerBook. . .

</strong><hr></blockquote>

A G3 with Alti-Vec added would essentially have G4 capabilities for single processor systems. It would run any software that requires a G4, so why not just call it that?

Another option would be to simplify the 970, maybe even a 32-bit version, and use that for consumer products. If the 970 dissipates just 19 Watts at 1.2 GHz, think what a simple version of the chip would do on the 90 nanometer process. Why do it? Well, Apple would have the same processor bus configuration for all models of the Mac, and other possible advantages of the 970 design.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
No, blame the music/film industry who despite a complete lack of evidence wishes to blame the consumer for the drop in CD sales, and a drop in movie attendance.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

Actually, in the UK anyway, cinema attendance is up, and I believe CD sales are too. But that's not the issue. The issue is that music piracy has become very visible, and there's no way that people "sharing" music also go out and buy it - it just doesn't happen.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>Anytime an industry acts with the assumption that all their customers are engaged in criminal behavior, that is a good indication that the industry is intellectually bereft of ideas, unable to deal with the future and morally suspect.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

I don't think that's really true. The music industry doesn't think all of its customers are pirates, but they do, correctly I think, see a lot of piracy that's very visible. Even if that only amounts to 5% of their turnover (quite likely a lot more than that), that's 5% that the rest of us have to subsidise. They want to try to prevent the piracy, and in doing so they "hurt" some of their customers too. If the piracy wasn't so blatent then the means to prevent it would be less invasive.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>These are the same people that said that VCR's would kill the industry (it instead opened up a lucrative post-theater sales and licensing market) and who pushed digital (CD's) to replace vinyl because they saw more profits in CD sales. There is still no direct evidence that mp3 downloads kill CD sales--crappy RIAA sponsored studies notwithstanding.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

VCR, and TV, had a huge impact on cinema attendances, to say otherwise ignores the obvious facts.

I think it should also be obvious to anyone that once someone has a pirated version of any material it's unlikely that they will ever buy an original. I'm not pretending to be an Angel here, I've got a few tapes people have given me over the years, and live concerts I've recorded from the radio, why would I go and buy another copy?

It's naive to believe that people are basically honest about such things, which seems to be your premise. People buy CDs or DVDs because that's the only way to get a copy. Once the physicality of possessing an item breaks down then people no longer need to seek out a piece of merchandise, they download it for free if they can.

[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>Consumers are sheep up until a certain point, if that were not the case MS would not have made substantial DRM changes to the XP Media OS. The consumer, in general, still believes in the tangibility of goods and purchase as ownership. Anything that messes with that basic assumption will meet with failure.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

How can they believe in the tangibility of goods that they can never hold?

You've already written that MS and the music film industry will work hand in hand, there will be no other standard, there will be no other way to buy music, at least in the mainstream, digital rights management will be adopted, because there will be no choice.

Apple with have no choice other than to adopt that same standard, or forget all about the digital hub.

[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>

601, 603, 603e 603ev, 604, 604e, 620, with 630 (G3) on the way, etc...

Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>

G3 was a "750" IIRC.

[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>and there's no way that people "sharing" music also go out and buy it - it just doesn't happen
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually a friend of mineis doing just that. He does use sharing software to get the latest music - but he also always then goes and buy the CD. Why? Because he can not bother to leave the PC on all the time and he can't take his mp3 collection to work and not fit it into the CD player of his car. And he likes buying CDs.

So - people who were buying music before are still doing it. The music industry only has a problem because they spend too much fscking money on advertising sheety music that then doesn't sell well. Red Hot Chilli Peppers never had a problem selling their stuff - because people like it.

[quote]Originally posted by MacJedai:
<strong>

Well, in one of my earlier posts on this thread, I said Apple has had samples since mid March of this year. I neglected to say that they got a second batch of samples in late July (these being a second revision of the chip), and that they're due to get a third batch very early next year. Now, I'm not saying that this last batch won't be just for various certifications and/or possibly sold as the acual item. After all, the project is supposed to end around the end of July or early August '03.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhmm, no. Fabrication of a chip is not a project with start and end dates. It's an ongoing process with target dates for acheiving certain milestones. Milestones like a profitable yield. Once a design is taped out, the only revisions you make are in aid of improving yields. Usually this isn't going to require more than one or two sampling runs to work out kinks in your process. (Unless the design is so fubar'ed you can't get decent yields with your process.)

You then work on tweaking the design to acheive other targets (like expected clockspeeds) and to iron out any bugs.

So if IBM has already provided two sets of samples to Apple they should be close to acheiving production level yields. And if Apple has had samples this long, they should have a chipset by now and be ready to ramp up when they get final product.

So someone is still fibbing.

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>

A G3 with Alti-Vec added would essentially have G4 capabilities for single processor systems. It would run any software that requires a G4, so why not just call it that?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

because the upcoming G3 from IBM will have DDR-Ram support and Rapid-IO and will be multicore superscalar...? (and this all besides the fact that it'll sport a SIMD unit)

edit: i'd call this one a "G5" and the 970 "G6"

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
Uhmm, no. Fabrication of a chip is not a project with start and end dates. It's an ongoing process with target dates for acheiving certain milestones. Milestones like a profitable yield. Once a design is taped out, the only revisions you make are in aid of improving yields. Usually this isn't going to require more than one or two sampling runs to work out kinks in your process. (Unless the design is so fubar'ed you can't get decent yields with your process.)

You then work on tweaking the design to acheive other targets (like expected clockspeeds) and to iron out any bugs.

So if IBM has already provided two sets of samples to Apple they should be close to acheiving production level yields. And if Apple has had samples this long, they should have a chipset by now and be ready to ramp up when they get final product.

So someone is still fibbing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're right about "target dates", that's all schedules realy are. I used the term 'project', because that's the term someone else used to describe the development schedule (the person that created it actually). Granted, there can be "other projects" to enhance processors after the initial development has been completed. IBM is very Project, Milestone, and process driven ... and yes, their projects do have estimated completion dates. They're NOT "never-ending-stories".

Apple started work on the chipset around the end of 2000 ... beginning of 2001

As far as production, IBM has yet to test full automated production on 300mm wafers. They've only just completed production tests in full manual mode.

Fibbing, not really. Just remember back to one of the original "Star Trek" episodes where Scotty advised expanding the length of time to complete repairs to a crew-mate, so that he could beat the time and look good (under normal circumstances), or give himself a cushion in case he ran into problems.

[ 11-26-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>

because the upcoming G3 from IBM will have DDR-Ram support and Rapid-IO and will be multicore superscalar...? (and this all besides the fact that it'll sport a SIMD unit)

edit: i'd call this one a "G5" and the 970 "G6"

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, we are talking about different things. I was responding to the usual request that IBM simply add Alti-Vec (an SIMD unit) to the G3 and use that for consumer Macs. I simply pointed out that it would then run any software that the G4 could run, so why not call it a G4 so consumers would not be confused about its capabilities. Apple could use these only in single processor Macs, however.

What I pointed out in the second half of the reply was an alternative. If IBM is going to the trouble of taping out a new processor, why not base it on the 970, but leave things out that are unnecessary for consumer Macs? (An ultra lite ultra lite so to speak) The advantage of doing this is that some beneficial things for Apple could be left in. It may be advantageous to have certain similarities between all Mac processors.

If Apple departs from the G3, G4 naming sequence, the consumer chip could be X1 and the 970 could be X2. Use anything you wish in place of the X. It would be made known that the X1 is like a G4 plus, and the X2 is the 64-bit super chip.

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>

Uh, we are talking about different things. I was responding to the usual request that IBM simply add Alti-Vec (an SIMD unit) to the G3 and use that for consumer Macs. I simply pointed out that it would then run any software that the G4 could run, so why not call it a G4 so consumers would not be confused about its capabilities. Apple could use these only in single processor Macs, however.

What I pointed out in the second half of the reply was an alternative. If IBM is going to the trouble of taping out a new processor, why not base it on the 970, but leave things out that are unnecessary for consumer Macs? (An ultra lite ultra lite so to speak) The advantage of doing this is that some beneficial things for Apple could be left in. It may be advantageous to have certain similarities between all Mac processors.

If Apple departs from the G3, G4 naming sequence, the consumer chip could be X1 and the 970 could be X2. Use anything you wish in place of the X. It would be made known that the X1 is like a G4 plus, and the X2 is the 64-bit super chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>

well,sorry - i just wanted to point out that there'll never be a ibm-G3 with just a simd unit added and nothing more. they'll make a generation-switch next year. one of the resulting products will be the mentioned G3successor and the other is the 970. two cpus are ok i think. but the X1, X2 naming convention is a step backwards in my opinion. i like the G5/6 better or even something like G4-X/G5-X64 ? ... i don't know...
the only thing i really have on my wish list is that at least one of those two new cpus will be out in february ...