or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › PPC 970 date?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PPC 970 date? - Page 2

post #41 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>That seems "on par" to me. It will kick the snot out of the G4 though.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right, the _improvement_ will be a lot better than "on par", although the chip is expected to end up "on par" with its contemporaries. That's plenty for me. Well, that and low power dissipation + designed for SMP
post #42 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by David M:
<strong>
I think the marketing strategy has devolved more to "don't get slaughtered like arthritic, myopic old mutton."</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ow ow ow ow. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #43 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by mmicist:
<strong>IBM are under a legal obligation, as a result of an anti-trust settlement, to announce (reasonably) accurately their forthcoming plans. If they say sampling in Q2 and production in Q3, a mere six months before the first of those dates, then they cannot wildly diverge without serious questions being asked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In reality, this supports the argument that we will see volume production before the announced date. IBM has to be conservative (read allow for slippage) in its announcements in order to comply with the consent decree. But nothing says they can't ship product before the announced date. The consent decree merely prevents them from disseminating FUD -- announcing products that won't be ready for some time just to prevent sales going to the competition.
[quote]<strong>However, were they to make a variation on the 970 for a specific customer as a custom chip, they don't have to pre-announce it at all, and may be contractually required not to.

&lt; Wild speculation mode&gt; If Apple came along some years ago and spoke to IBM, saying "How about taking your plans for a POWER4 lite and making us a special version, dual core, shared L2, on-board memory controller, and our nice ApplePI interface?". IBM would probably have said "Show us the money and we'll do it." I like to think of it as the PPC 977, could appear any time, and, being a custom design, knowledge would not even be widespread within IBM. &lt;/Wild speculation mode&gt;</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but this would be extremely difficult to keep under wraps. You'd think we would of heard something about this by this late date.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #44 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:

Where I'd expect the PPC 970 to be a very nice chip is in 2 way, 4 way or 8 way solutions against the likes of Xeons or Opterons. I rather expect IBM is planning it that way too it is just a question of cost now. Personally I think that would be the best argument for why Apple should finally release some much higher end (and higher margin) workstations or servers using 4 or even 8 processors.<hr></blockquote>

As my signature has said since 1999, Apple has always had the power to win the MHz Wars by going multiple CPU's.

The by now obvious drawback to this approach has been the limitations of the bus architecture to support the processors. I was cheered to see the Powermac go to all duals, even with the bus limits imposed by the current motherboard. The main advantage right now of the duals is that it has encouraged the developers (like Adobe) to write multi-threaded applications.

The 970 will erase those limitations, and I expect Apple to jump on this, to finally, and for all time, erase the performance lead by Intel and AMD.

About cost: Many people assume that the cost of the IBM 970 will preclude it from being offered in dual, much less quad or octo configurations. I think that it may well be cheaper than the current Moto offerings because it is designed to be produced in a modern, high efficiency fab. Just going to the 300mm wafer insures significant cost savings, and a rapid move to a 90nm process will further increase per wafer yields and decrease cost.

The purchase of Nothing Real, and other high end applications insures that Apple will have a workstation class offering with at least 4 CPU's in my opinion. I don't expect that one to be cheap, but I do expect the dual Powermacs to be at the same, or lower pricing level.

Back on Topic: Although I share everyone's hope against hope that the 970 will be here soonest, Steve's proclaiming 2003 as "the year of the laptop" somewhat dashed those hopes for me and now my best and most optimistic prediction would be finally some mention, or better yet a Xsrve with the 970 announced at MWNY in July, with the Powermac 970 in September so the iMacs can go to the highest available (7457) speed for Xmas sales.

An IBM 970 dual Powermac by MWSF 2004 being the safer, albeit pessimistic, bet.
...

[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: Aphelion ]</p>
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #45 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Aphelion:
<strong>About cost: Many people assume that the cost of the IBM 970 will preclude it from being offered in dual, much less quad or octo configurations. I think that it may well be cheaper than the current Moto offerings because it is designed to be produced in a modern, high efficiency fab. Just going to the 300mm wafer insures significant cost savings, and a rapid move to a 90nm process will further increase per wafer yields and decrease cost.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The 0.13 micron 970 shouldn't be any more expensive, roughly speaking, than the 7455 currently used in Apple's machines (I doubt it'll be much cheaper though). The 7457 will be cheaper & faster than the 7455 because of its migration to a 0.13 process, but it will go into lower end and portable machines.

SMP machines have their downsides too -- they don't benchmark that well since most benchmarks are single processor (at least so far), they generate twice the heat, they require a more complex motherboard or they have to share memory bandwidth. More than 2 G4's just doesn't make sense, and won't until they go with an RIO-based NUMA architecture. Certainly the 970 looks like it is ideally suited for large SMP machines, but those aren't going to be cheap machines.

Multi-core is going to start showing up on the desktop in the next couple of years, and IBM is definitely leading that charge. This has the advantage of keeping system complexity down while giving the advantages of SMP.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #46 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Aphelion:
<strong>

Back on Topic: Although I share everyone's hope against hope that the 970 will be here soonest, Steve's proclaiming 2003 as "the year of the laptop" somewhat dashed those hopes for me and now my best and most optimistic prediction would be finally some mention, or better yet a Xsrve with the 970 announced at MWNY in July, with the Powermac 970 in September so the iMacs can go to the highest available (7457) speed for Xmas sales.

[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: Aphelion ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

2002 was the year of the TFT's, death of the CRT's and the eMac came

just a thought
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
Waiting for the Power Mac G5 since Oktober 2001
Reply
post #47 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

SMP machines have their downsides too -- More than 2 G4's just doesn't make sense, and won't until they go with an RIO-based NUMA architecture.

Multi-core is going to start showing up on the desktop in the next couple of years, and IBM is definitely leading that charge. This has the advantage of keeping system complexity down while giving the advantages of SMP.<hr></blockquote>

I defer to your greater understanding of such things, programmer, and in 1999 when I first wrote my sig I did not have a full understanding of the technical difficulties in implementing quads and octos, but at that time the 7410 was the best offering and it is MERCI compliant (correct me if I'm wrong, or have the acronym scrambled).

But that was then and this is now... I have one question though, would two dual core CPU's be considered a "quad", and by extension four dual CPU's a "octo"?

By the way I had high hopes that Apple would buy SGI when it went to $.50 a share, and actually bought some SGI in hopes of that acquisition. It never happened, but I did make a small killing on SGI when I sold @ $4.33.
...
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #48 of 345
We've gotta be looking at a typical Apple scenario of July announcment with September shipping. I thnk multi-processor high end machines are very likely...Apple have been dancing with the high-end 3D and film editing companies for two years now and they HAVE to be telling those guys something seriously juicy. My personal wish...a 2/3U rackmount half the depth of the Xserve with quad 970's.
post #49 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by vinney57:
My personal wish...a 2/3U rackmount half the depth of the Xserve with quad 970's.<hr></blockquote>

Yes! and then put it in a vertical case and sell it as the PowerStation.
...
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #50 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Aphelion:
<strong>I defer to your greater understanding of such things, programmer, and in 1999 when I first wrote my sig I did not have a full understanding of the technical difficulties in implementing quads and octos, but at that time the 7410 was the best offering and it is MERCI compliant (correct me if I'm wrong, or have the acronym scrambled).
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Back in the days of the 604 the situation wasn't so bad -- processors couldn't gobble data as fast as a 1+ GHz G4. Since then, however, computing power has grown very quickly and the PowerPC memory interface hasn't really kept pace.

MERSI, by the way, describes the possible states of each chunk of cache (generally 32-byte blocks called "cache lines"). Each cache line is a copy of what is supposed to be in memory at some location. The memory copy isn't kept completely up to date at all times, however, because that would slow things down too much. Instead the cache keeps a few state bits, describing what is going on with the cache line (note that this is from memory so there might be inaccuracies):

M - modified, which means that this cache line contains the latest data and it has been modified from the value that was in RAM. Nobody else has a copy.
E - exclusive, which means that the cache line is unmodified but the only copy of this data is this one.
S - shared, which means that the cache line and at least one other processor's cache have unmodified copies of this data.
I - invalid, which means that this cache line currently isn't used.

R - reserved (only used by the 7400/7410, I believe), which means that this cache line has a modified copy of the data and it can provide it directly to a different processor's cache without updating memory in the process. This was a significant speed optimization since processor could trade data back and forth without having to wait for a RAM read-modify-write cycle. I'm not sure why it was dropped from later processors.

These MERSI bits are used to mark each cache line, and a processor on the bus watches all of the bus traffic from all processors (this is called bus snooping and is why it needs to be shared bus). When it sees a memory transaction involving data that it has in one of its cache lines, it can either intervene or just update its own MERSI bits to track what is going on.

[quote]<strong>
But that was then and this is now... I have one question though, would two dual core CPU's be considered a "quad", and by extension four dual CPU's a "octo"?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know that there is "official" terminology yet. My guess is that we'll start talking about the number of cores in a system. Its not going to be very long (&lt;5 years) before we start seeing large numbers of cores on a single die. On the desktop this may replace having to have seperate processor chips. IBM is talking about having 16+ processors in a "cell" configuration on one die.

[quote]<strong>
By the way I had high hopes that Apple would buy SGI when it went to $.50 a share, and actually bought some SGI in hopes of that acquisition. It never happened, but I did make a small killing on SGI when I sold @ $4.33. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I've given up trying to have reasons while investing -- they are usually completely wrong, and whether I make money or not is completely independent of whether my reasons were right or wrong.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #51 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>I've given up trying to have reasons while investing -- they are usually completely wrong, and whether I make money or not is completely independent of whether my reasons were right or wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, SGI went up more dramatically than I had even hoped for with an Apple buy-out (and attendant stock swap). Too bad my continued AAPL accumulation has not paid off yet. The 970 event (RSN) is what I'm hoping for to have a similar effect.
...
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
OSX + Duals, Quads & Octos = World Domination
Reply
post #52 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
Yes but this would be extremely difficult to keep under wraps. You'd think we would of heard something about this by this late date.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nobody got any sort of hint of the new Powerbooks 'til the night before though...
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
"Be entirely tolerant or not at all; follow the good path or the evil one. To stand at the crossroads requires more strength than you possess."

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments...
Reply
post #53 of 345
[quote]Nobody got any sort of hint of the new Powerbooks 'til the night before though...<hr></blockquote>The new powerbooks didn't need to have software developers qualify a "new" SIMD implementation or have hardware developers test for a whole new mobo architecture. Such large-scale changes should be much harder to keep under wraps.

802.11g was a bigger surprise as that is not even a ratified standard--yet.

[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #54 of 345
Ok. This is a bad thread...let's face it. IBM and Apple surely aren't giving any clues as to when it will be introduced in a Powermac, assuming Apple will still call the workstations that , but we can see the only timelines put forth are IBM's 3Q estimate - July - Sept, so figure Apple, the biggest buyer of said chip, is going to get them a helluva lot sooner...so say Feb intro and March release. :eek:
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #55 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by vinney57:
<strong>Apple have been dancing with the high-end 3D and film editing companies for two years now and they HAVE to be telling those guys something seriously juicy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As well as Apple gets along with the film and press industries I rather expect some of the greatest demand for them lies in the scientific communities, which traditionally use a unix workstation and a PC. OS X has really wrapped both into one and gives the opportunity for significant cost savings especially for the educational markets.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #56 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>SMP machines have their downsides too ...benchmarks...heat...complex...but those aren't going to be cheap machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The point I see in there is that (assuming a SMP-ready sort of FSB) the 970 is very well situated for SMP.

All the issues you state do, of course, apply. But the competition is MP Xeons -&gt; it is an area where Apple should be able to (handily!) compete in price based soley on relative CPU price.
post #57 of 345
Thread Starter 
Actually I'd rather see Apple use Power5 chips as high-high-end... Xserve for example!

It wouldnt require that much work to get the Power5 working with OSX.. Except of course the 64 bits, but 970 has already made that possible..
"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]
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]
Reply
post #58 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>Actually I'd rather see Apple use Power5 chips as high-high-end... Xserve for example!

It wouldnt require that much work to get the Power5 working with OSX.. Except of course the 64 bits, but 970 has already made that possible.. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sure Apple will consider the possibility as soon as the POWER5 is a reality. I also suspect it won't be quite as "high-high-end" as you seem to think.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #59 of 345
As for duals and quads not benching as well due to apps being written for single proc:

Virtual Single Processor is all i have to say.

VSD
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #60 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by jccbin:
<strong>As for duals and quads not benching as well due to apps being written for single proc:

Virtual Single Processor is all i have to say.

VSD</strong><hr></blockquote>

I read the description of the VSD technology and it does not mean that unthreaded apps will suddenly use multiple processors. You still need to thread your app, but it makes the distribution of threads between processors transparent even across non-shared memory systems. If I'm wrong about this please point me at the link where they say different.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #61 of 345
How much of a performance jump would one see using VSD? If I understand this right it is a way to run the same process through both CPUs making two CPUs a lot more like one really fast one. If VSD is being used on the 970 I would expect to see more than one dual powermac. I imagine it will be like today. Bottom line single, middle and top dual.

Question: Is there a way to run a dual system through two separate busses. Where each CPU has it's own bus and they are connect at the system controller? If apple ever mad quads for there Xserves would this not help performance? Just wondering.

Also can anyone come up with a good reason as to why the 7455 is running at 1.42GHz but we had rumors of Moto having trouble getting the 7457 past 1.42Ghz? Kind of weird in my opinion. I was wondering if apple perhaps turned down the 7457 in favor of the 970. Moto thus deciding not to bother with it.
"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 #62 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>How much of a performance jump would one see using VSD? If I understand this right it is a way to run the same process through both CPUs making two CPUs a lot more like one really fast one. If VSD is being used on the 970 I would expect to see more than one dual powermac. I imagine it will be like today. Bottom line single, middle and top dual. </strong><hr></blockquote>

More detail is needed about what this VSD is. If it's a layer that makes two completely separate CPUs look and act like two cores on one die, or even two CPUS on a shared bus, then it's really nice but not earthshaking. It would basically allow Apple to radically change the underlying architecture without the applications noticing, but it would not improve performance.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it introduced a little overhead.

[quote]<strong>Question: Is there a way to run a dual system through two separate busses. Where each CPU has it's own bus and they are connect at the system controller? If apple ever mad quads for there Xserves would this not help performance? Just wondering. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. This is how a NUMA architecture is built. It's been popular in e.g. SGI workstations, but until this year - really - it's been prohibitively expensive to design. HyperTransport, RapidIO, and IBM's Giga bus (the one on the 970) change that.

The 970 can only be set up this way, although if I recall there's another bus that can go directly between processors, setting up a fabric of sorts (rather than everything going through a central controller). This would correspond to something like the Reserved SMP support in the 7400, allowing CPUs to keep their respective memory banks coherent without having to go through the controller.

Note that in a NUMA architecture, each CPU has its own memory controller and its own RAM! That's where VSD becomes interesting, if it is what I think it is: It would provide the illusion that the architecture was x number of CPUs on a shared bus, communicating with a monolithic bank of RAM - the current, traditional architecture.

[quote]<strong>Also can anyone come up with a good reason as to why the 7455 is running at 1.42GHz but we had rumors of Moto having trouble getting the 7457 past 1.42Ghz? Kind of weird in my opinion. I was wondering if apple perhaps turned down the 7457 in favor of the 970. Moto thus deciding not to bother with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

People might have confused the 7455 and the 7457. Also, the 7455 is a mature design running on a mature process (and really, who expected it to make it to 1.42GHz?) while the '57 will be a new design (not radically new, but tweaked for the smaller process) on a new process, so speeds and yields won't be as good. As the process matures, the 7457 should pick up MHz at a decent clip.

The 7457 does not in any way compete with the 970. They're two different chips aimed at two different markets. Mot's embedded customers love the 7455, and they'll love the 7457, regardless of its fitness for professional Apple workstations. There's no question that Mot will produce it. The question is if and how Apple will use it. It's a safe bet that it will continue to power portables and consumer machines after the 970 appears.

Mot's rumored competitor for the 970 was apparently codenamed Eleven, and it apparently got shelved or canned.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #63 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Note that in a NUMA architecture, each CPU has its own memory controller and its own RAM! That's where VSD becomes interesting, if it is what I think it is: It would provide the illusion that the architecture was x number of CPUs on a shared bus, communicating with a monolithic bank of RAM - the current, traditional architecture.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, I believe that's what it is. Most NUMA systems allow direct addressability of all the memory, but non-local memory is slower to retrieve than local memory. The VSD system is probably a mechanism to move around logical memory pages to keep them local to the processor that needs them. Beyond that, it probably transparently supports non-local memory which is not directly addressable and has to be transfered by some other service (DMA, Ethernet, FireWire, etc).
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #64 of 345
So, if I understand this right, a dual 970 will be a lot more like two computers in one pretending to be one computer. Or in other words, they will both have their own busses and memory etc but will work together like one, like the Borg. I can see that this setup could end up being extremely fast. How many 970s can this be done to? Could we end up with a quad for the xserves? Maybe a really expensive custom quad tower for around $4000...
"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 #65 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by mmicist:
<strong>IBM are under a legal obligation, as a result of an anti-trust settlement, to announce (reasonably) accurately their forthcoming plans.
[...]

michael</strong><hr></blockquote>

/rant
Ok, not to pick on you Michael, because I see this particular claim over and over and over...but it isn't true anymore:

<a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1996/July96/324.at.html" target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1996/July96/324.at.html</a>

That is one of the problems with sites like this, people make a claim, and then it is parroted over and over without seeing if it is true.

/end rant
"Michael Dell is the greatest spare-parts distributor out there" Scott McNealy, CEO Sun
Reply
"Michael Dell is the greatest spare-parts distributor out there" Scott McNealy, CEO Sun
Reply
post #66 of 345
Can we just ban these stupid "970 when?" threads, because we seem to having one about every two weeks at the moment - and we don't get any more information for all the fuss it causes.

When: as posted loads of times, second half of 2003 at best - MWSF'04 would hopefully be a worst case scenario, but be prepared for it to appear yet later, if at all.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #67 of 345
I'm sure that when the time comes, the specs will leak a day before an official announcement
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #68 of 345
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>[quote]Question: Is there a way to run a dual system through two separate busses. Where each CPU has it's own bus and they are connect at the system controller? If apple ever mad quads for there Xserves would this not help performance? Just wondering.<hr></blockquote></strong>

[quote]<strong>Yes. This is how a NUMA architecture is built. It's been popular in e.g. SGI workstations, but until this year - really - it's been prohibitively expensive to design. HyperTransport, RapidIO, and IBM's Giga bus (the one on the 970) change that.

The 970 can only be set up this way, although if I recall there's another bus that can go directly between processors, setting up a fabric of sorts (rather than everything going through a central controller). This would correspond to something like the Reserved SMP support in the 7400, allowing CPUs to keep their respective memory banks coherent without having to go through the controller.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Would it then be okay to expect a quad 970 on a theoretically 3.6 Ghz bus?

[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>Can we just ban these stupid "970 when?" threads, because we seem to having one about every two weeks at the moment - and we don't get any more information for all the fuss it causes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Some of us dont live their lives on AI, and therefore dont know all the gossip.
And if you dont like the smell in the bakery, then stay away!

[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: T'hain Esh Kelch ]</p>
"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]
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]
Reply
post #69 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>

And if you dont like the smell in the bakery, then stay away! </strong><hr></blockquote>

Now I feel like freshly baked warm bread damn it <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">

[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #70 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>

Some of us dont live their lives on AI, and therefore dont know all the gossip.
And if you dont like the smell in the bakery, then stay away! </strong><hr></blockquote>

You don't have to spend your life here, it's been a recurring theme for about four or five months now, every couple of weeks. It's not adding any new information and just makes the whole board less useful.

It's easy to say "if you don't like...", but I want to read fresh info too, all I get is the same stale old dough!

Admin, please lock this thread!
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #71 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>So, if I understand this right, a dual 970 will be a lot more like two computers in one pretending to be one computer. Or in other words, they will both have their own busses and memory etc but will work together like one, like the Borg. I can see that this setup could end up being extremely fast. How many 970s can this be done to? Could we end up with a quad for the xserves? Maybe a really expensive custom quad tower for around $4000...</strong><hr></blockquote>

It would depend on how the machine is built. A typical dual 970, however, would most likely have a dual ported companion chip and the only thing that the 970's would not share would be the FSB. The same is probably true of quad processors. More than 4 ports would result in an unruly number of pins on the chipset, however, and the chipset would have to be a very fast memory controller in order to satisfy the appetite of 4 970s. Beyond this level the system would have to start using something like RapidIO, PCI-X, or some other system/board level bus to exchange data and this would cause a performance drop on anything they share. They could all still connect to the same I/O subsystem, however. The next step is from systems to clusters and the interconnects become Ethernet, FibreChannel, FireWire, or something along those lines. At that point only the communications channel is shared and each machine has its own I/O and even power supply.

VSD isn't some magic solution, but it does allow the easier development of clustered applications.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #72 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

It would depend on how the machine is built. A typical dual 970, however, would most likely have a dual ported companion chip and the only thing that the 970's would not share would be the FSB. The same is probably true of quad processors. More than 4 ports would result in an unruly number of pins on the chipset, however, and the chipset would have to be a very fast memory controller in order to satisfy the appetite of 4 970s. Beyond this level the system would have to start using something like RapidIO, PCI-X, or some other system/board level bus to exchange data and this would cause a performance drop on anything they share. They could all still connect to the same I/O subsystem, however. The next step is from systems to clusters and the interconnects become Ethernet, FibreChannel, FireWire, or something along those lines. At that point only the communications channel is shared and each machine has its own I/O and even power supply.

VSD isn't some magic solution, but it does allow the easier development of clustered applications.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How about the companion chip having 2 ports to each CPU plus a RIO port to another companion chip. This would require seperate memory spaces for each pair of processors, but it would allow for a low pin count on the companion chips.
post #73 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>How about the companion chip having 2 ports to each CPU plus a RIO port to another companion chip. This would require seperate memory spaces for each pair of processors, but it would allow for a low pin count on the companion chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh, I wasn't trying to develop and exhaustive list. There are very many possible topologies, unlike MPX which is really only usable as a single shared bus and snooping between buses isn't inherently supported (although could be done).
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #74 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Aphelion:
<strong>


About cost: Many people assume that the cost of the IBM 970 will preclude it from being offered in dual, much less quad or octo configurations.
[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: Aphelion ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

As far as I understood from previous discussions, it is not the technical side that prevents Apple from going quad or octo but patent-issues. It cost Apple half a fortune to buy back the rights for dual-configurations from one of the former Mac-clone manufacturers.
post #75 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Gulliver:
<strong>

As far as I understood from previous discussions, it is not the technical side that prevents Apple from going quad or octo but patent-issues. It cost Apple half a fortune to buy back the rights for dual-configurations from one of the former Mac-clone manufacturers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have some reference for this?

I can't see that this has anything to do with patent, because it would preclude *any* dual/quad/octo/etc processor machines - and that's clearly not the case.

Possibly Apple granted someone an exclusive licence to develop multiple processor machines - ie they couldn't do it themselves, under contract terms. But again this sounds unlikely to me.

AFAIR the only quad processor Macs were produced by Daystar Digital.

I believe that there have been, and probably are still, multiple vendors for multiple processors PPC boards/machines (running *nix). Easiest example is the upgrade market where you can easily find multiple vendors for dual processor Mac upgrades.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #76 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>


Possibly Apple granted someone an exclusive licence to develop multiple processor machines - ie they couldn't do it themselves, under contract terms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are right, this was it! (Sorry, I did not know how to express that in English).

As far as I can remember this license dates back to the times of the PPC 604.

BTW: Did you ever wonder why no third-party supplier since that time offered quad- or octo-configurations? This could have been a beautiful niche for them!

[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: Gulliver ]</p>
post #77 of 345
[quote]Originally posted by Gulliver:
<strong>

You are right, this was it! (Sorry, I did not know how to express that in English).

As far as I can remember this license dates back to the times of the PPC 604.

BTW: Did you ever wonder why no third-party supplier since that time offered quad- or octo-configurations? This could have been a beautiful niche for them!

[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: Gulliver ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


I may be off here, but if I remember correctly Daystar developed the Dual cards, and the system extensions to utalize them. Apple licensed this technology from Daystar to build their dual computers. Apple designed a mother board with 2 daughter card slots that Daystar used to build Quads (2 dual processor daughter cards).

The reason that no one has since built a Quad system is that Apple stoped building a motherboard that would support 2 daughter cards. I'm not a hardware engineer, but I would be willing to bet that there are hardware limitations that prohibit putting 2 G4's on one daughter card. Also, from what I have read on these boards, issues like system bus speed and memory speeds would make this "upgrade" a bad value.

One last comment that I only have a laymans grasp of the legal issues. Apple can get around any patent issues with the hardware by engineering their own solution, or using one developed by IBM to get Quad configurations. One the software side, the extensions were for OS 7/8/9... OS X has a new core which natively supports MP systems so they would not have to worry about paying licensing fees to Daystar for MP support once they leave OS 9 complealy behhind.
post #78 of 345
For those hoping for an NAB release; We just received an update of the full conference schedule. As far as I can tell, Apple in not involved in any of the Key Notes, Special Events, Super Sessions, Leaderships Sessions, or Workshops.

There will be a couple of sessions in the two-day Digital Video Production Workshop on Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro, but no Apple employees are scheduled to be involved.

This, of course, doesn't obviate Apple from doing an intro on the vendor floor, but it seems unlikely for a product this significant.
neumac
Reply
neumac
Reply
post #79 of 345
It doesn't appear to me that Apple has any plans for a Mac with more than 2 CPUs for at least the next couple of years.

I'm not saying anything about how great it would or wouldn't be, or whether they can or can't do it for technical or legal reasons. I'm just saying that they won't.
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
The people are so happy now, their heads are caving in.
Reply
post #80 of 345
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › PPC 970 date?