or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › [Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ? - Page 4

post #121 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
<strong>EDIT: People always get screwed. What's Apple going to do, quit selling the PowerMac G4 six weeks before the PowerMac 970 comes out just so no one gets overly pissed? Early adopters of the current generation of G4s will be just as screwed as those who bought a IIvx just weeks before the Quadra 650... the performance difference will probably be very similar. The Q650 was something like 3x faster than the IIvx, and the IIvx was a real piece of crap.

[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, the Quadra 650 was faster than the IIVX, but it certainly wasn't twice as fast or three times. We're talking about a 33MHz (I believe) 68030 vs. a 40MHz 68040. In any case, I've been livid once or twice concerning purchasing right before the next generation. I smartly purchased my Quarda 650 (which is still a good machine), but was infuriated over the fact my 8600/300 wasn't going to be fully supported by OS X, especially when the low end G3 that came out soon after was slower than my machine. But that anger soon dissipated when I learned years later OS X ran poorly on the beige G3. I wouldn't have been any better off.

Now, concerning the leap from G4 to 970, it's a different story. This is most likely the most significant watershed in Mac history. It's only real parallel one could cite would be from the 68040 to the first generation Power Macs. Yet, this is more significant because of the performance spike promised.

One positive thing is, for the Mac users under rocks with fingers stuck in their ears, Apple has set a precedent for protecting them. If you recall, there was a tradeup program post-MWSF 2003 for hardware bought something like a month or so before an upgrade. (Can't remember exact terms, but those details are close.) I think there's a good chance Apple will provide the same opportunity when the 970 Mac appears.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #122 of 477
If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
What do you think?
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 #123 of 477
stop this marklar-sh** - i just want my 970 - there's no need for OS X on x86-"machines" <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #124 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>
I have tried to calculate how many time higher SPEC scores a dual 970 gets than my current G4/400 at home but I am running out out of fingers <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Is a manyfold a bigger entity than a several fold?

Sorry for the pun, I am giddy <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

yeah - give me the 970 - i wanna get rid of my G4/400 too <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> this is awesome - and perhaps we will get a newer sound-system and endless graphics-power!!!! droooooooooooooooool
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #125 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>stop this marklar-sh** - i just want my 970 - there's no need for OS X on x86-"machines" <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... You have the possibility to buy a cheap peecee and run OSX on it, or you will have a PIV crushing PPC 970 with OSX on it.. Consumers buy peecee's AND OSX, top-end d00d's buy PPC 970's with OSX... Apple's marketshare KABOOOMS. ==&gt; Apple sells more macs ==&gt; More marketshare ==&gt; More Apple sales... -Get my point? <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>IBM PPC 970:

SPECint2000
? 937 @ 1.8 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 5220 @ 1.8 GHz

....

So let's extrapolate this to 2.5ghz...

SPECint2000
? 1301 @ 2.5 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1459 @ 2.5 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 7250 @ 2.5 GHz

.....

Here's what the current MOT G4 does:

SPECint2000
? 418 @ 1.4 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 248 @ 1.4 GHz

.....

That would make a single PPC 970 processor running at the same MHz as a G4 a bit less than 2x faster for SPECint2000, and a bit over 3x faster for SPECfp.

A single PPC 970 @ 2.5 GHz vs. a single G4 @ 1.4 GHz would result in the PPC 970 being about 3.1x faster for SPECint, and about 5.8x faster.

This is all "on paper" of course, but still, quite interesting.

.....

Oh, and here's a Pentium IV @ 3.06 GHz:

SPECint2000
? 1032 @ 3.06 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1092 @ 3.06 GHz

.....

Looks like an interesting future indeed...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people!
"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 #126 of 477
Marklar would be the cheapest way for a switcher. I never liked the whole idea until I thought about switchers. Look, people defect from Wintel not because of the hardware. There is decent PC hardware. There is also great PC hardware. It is Microsoft that pisses off most of switchers. And Marklar, though still a developer's headache, is a question of $130 per Mac OS X box, not a question of some $1500 per Macintosh. If they included an ugly powerful Windows-in-MacOS emulator to run Windows apps inside Mac OS X, a switcher could save a great lot of money on software for a while. Imagine: you buy a Mac OS X license, try it with Windows software, see that you like it and start buying the MacOS software (or even Apple's hardware if you can afford a blazingly fast computer). Think 'fully functional MacOS demo on your PC'. Might be cool.
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 #127 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
What do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do not think your second idea is plausible. I believe OS X x86 is kept current with the PPC version internally. It's a proof of concept and option of last resort. I don't see a viable future for such a product for many reasons. In any case, it wouldn't make sense to hype the new tremendous PPC and then simultaneously roll out an Intel binary. The timing just wouldn't work. And it's certainly not what moki suggested.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #128 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>

Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people! </strong><hr></blockquote>

Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #129 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who cares about real world? We all live online anyway..
"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 #130 of 477
Hmmm. Yes. If Apple could rely on substance to back up the undoubted style of their hardware, then opening up to x86 does seem more feasible. Especially in view of Fred Anderson's remarks about a lot more software coming along this year....

Don't know if I want to believe it though.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: boy_analog ]</p>
post #131 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong> If they included an ugly powerful Windows-in-MacOS emulator to run Windows apps inside Mac OS X, a switcher could save a great lot of money on software for a while. Imagine: you buy a Mac OS X license, try it with Windows software, see that you like it and start buying the MacOS software (or even Apple's hardware if you can afford a blazingly fast computer). Think 'fully functional MacOS demo on your PC'. Might be cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>

VPC for Marklar? Intriguing. Of course, those of us who enjoyed the X-Files a little too much (such as myself) might wonder if a certain recent M$ acquisition was done to forestall such a development!
post #132 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Isn't that what I've been saying for a while now?

Once again:

PPC970 production starting in MARCH.

Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.
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 #133 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>PPC970 production starting in MARCH.

Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Assuming you're correct.

As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?

Please feel free to correct me.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #134 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>Marklar would be the cheapest way for a switcher. I never liked the whole idea until I thought about switchers. Look, people defect from Wintel not because of the hardware. There is decent PC hardware. There is also great PC hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But there is not consistent PC hardware. How many switchers complain about peripherals and drivers not working? Well, you can't blame all of that on MS. Windows is as chaotic as it is at least partly because they have to support all kinds of arbitrary hardware in a single software release. That's a recipe for disaster, and it's not something Apple can overcome: Bad, corrupted or conflicting drivers can undercut any operating system's attempts at stability. Also, how many switchers have switched just by seeing a TiBook? Hardware has, in fact, been a reason to switch.

Now that it looks like Apple wil be able to offer a P4-based machine for those lemmings- oops, better not revive that ad - who really want a slower, hotter, kludgier, more expensive, single processor solution just because it's x86, they might. But I maintain that if they do it will be targeted at enterprise, not at consumer switchers; it will in all likelihood be a server component, and it will be safely embedded in Apple hardware. You will not be able to run OS X on your Dell.

It would be an interesting part of a blade-like system, actually: Run your Linux code without recompiling, without the headaches of maintaining Linux. An OS X Server that could transparently cluster via Rendezvous and bridge across ISAs in a way that allowed it to discern the native type of an executable and dispatch it to the appropriate CPU for execution... that might go somewhere. Or it might simply serve to get a foot in the door of x86-only shops, which is something moki has given as a reason.
"...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 #135 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

Assuming you're correct.

As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?

Please feel free to correct me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Since IBM is demoing prototype PowerPC Blade servers in what, 3 weeks, then production has begun.

It's the wrappings (read: other system board/component production), that is what will take time now. The chip exists, and prototype servers are already produced. I think Apple is probably in the same phase of finishing prototype boxes right now. Who knows, maybe they're just waiting for prototype boxes that 'glow'....
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #136 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>Isn't that what I've been saying for a while now?

Once again:

PPC970 production starting in MARCH.

Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.

Interesting.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #137 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by boy_analog:
<strong>

VPC for Marklar? Intriguing. Of course, those of us who enjoyed the X-Files a little too much (such as myself) might wonder if a certain recent M$ acquisition was done to forestall such a development!</strong><hr></blockquote>

There's been some talk about Apple incorporating the Bochs emulation (open-source Windows emulator for Unix) system into OS X, possibly as soon as 10.3. <a href="http://bochs.sourceforge.net/" target="_blank">Bochs homepage</a>

That would be the REAL butt-kicker - if the 970+Bochs gives Apple native IA-32 emulation that is nearly as fast as the best x86 hardware, built right into the OS, who needs Marklar?

<a href="http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2003/tc20030226_0465_tc056.htm" target="_blank">Business Week article</a>
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #138 of 477
Big Mac compared the G4 to 970 to the 68k to PPC. adn concluded that this is a bigger jump, I agree! For pure code cruncing PPC was an enourmous jump forward. in RC-5 the 601 nubus computers score 100-200 k/s while the IIfx is at 5K/s as I recall. But in practical use the combination of a lot of emulation in the OS and some really crappy applications liek Word 6 that made a 120 MHz PPC work slower than a 16 MHz 68020 with Word 5.1a. I got a 6100/60 at work when it came out in 1994 and it was a dissapointment from the start until I left it to rot in 1999.

This time it is no emulation, it is pure PPC just much faster, and if the 970 are " to fast" compared to the current G4, please Apple make me suffer from speed overload, I think I can forgive you on that one <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />

Regarding 64 bit computing, let it come in due time there is no hurry, more urgent is to get the HFSplus to HFSExtreme (hfSEXtreme perhaps). That is to get the file system to be not only case presvering but also case sensitive this would make it closer to other UNIXes.
post #139 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That assumes you're correct that it takes 60 days to fab the PPC970 and I'm not convinced that's the case. It may take 60 days (or so) to ramp up to full production level yields, but that doesn't mean there won't be chips available (although constrained) to the market before then.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #140 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.

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

Better: Why didn't Apple update the 15" PB, and why hasn't it now that the channel has been bone dry for some time?

How many 17" PB's have shipped? Over at MacNN, there are several increasingly furious threads about shipping delays.

As an idle thought, how many 1.42 GHz PowerMacs have actually shipped?

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...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 #141 of 477
everyone sure has gotten their expectations up. There has been no announcement that apple will even use the 970 or anything else for that matter. THey could do something completely arbitruary. Lets get back to earth. Mac users this is Houston... do you read me?
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
post #142 of 477
FWIW, I was poking around on Ars Battlefront yesterday to watch some fur fly after this announcement and I found this quote interesting:

[quote]
As a Macintosh user, I live in interesting times. And I believe that Apple will see those those kinds of speeds, and more, from their as yet unannouced "switcher" program of their own.
<hr></blockquote>

At first I thought...huh? But now it's making a bit more sense.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #143 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by kraig911:
<strong>everyone sure has gotten their expectations up. There has been no announcement that apple will even use the 970 or anything else for that matter. THey could do something completely arbitruary. Lets get back to earth. Mac users this is Houston... do you read me?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe you're right...no wait, I cannot even imagine that a Apple will use anything BUT an IBM processor in the Powermacs upcoming. All things point to Apple. Of course there is no announcement, this is Apple. Have they ever pre-announced something like this? Hell no. Houston, ignore kraig911, he's lost all his senses
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #144 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>IBM PPC 970:

SPECint2000
? 937 @ 1.8 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 5220 @ 1.8 GHz

....

So let's extrapolate this to 2.5ghz...

SPECint2000
? 1301 @ 2.5 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1459 @ 2.5 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 7250 @ 2.5 GHz

.....
[snip]
.....

Oh, and here's a Pentium IV @ 3.06 GHz:

SPECint2000
? 1032 @ 3.06 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1092 @ 3.06 GHz

.....

Looks like an interesting future indeed...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree the future looks interesting but here you are comparing *actual* P4 SPEC numbers to a linear extrapolation of *estimated* 970 SPEC numbers. And the P4 3.067 is shipping now. SPEC numbers never see a linear scaling with Hz without other improvements as well - from 1.8 to 2.5 GHz you'd probably get at least a 5% drop from linear scaling. I think the match up would look more like this on release of the 970:

[code]
PPC 970 @ 2.5 GHz SPECint2k = 1236
SPECfp2k = 1386
P4 @ 3.4 GHz SPECint2k = 1278 (up from 1130(*))
SPECfp2k = 1249 (up from 1103(*)) </pre><hr></blockquote>
* Dell Precision WorkStation 350 @ 3.067 GHz - see <a href="http://www.spec.org" target="_blank">www.spec.org</a>

For the P4 I assumed 10% super-linear scaling of the measured Dell #s since Intel are moving from a 533 MHz FSB to an 800 MHz FSB which will be very beneficial. The hardware sites are expecting at least a 10% increase based on this move.

Of course, since the 970 #s are estimates they may be conservative. Also, the FSB scaling with the internal clock may prevent sub-linear scaling of performance. Thirdly, the VMX/AltiVec unit is superior to SSE and is finally getting bandwidth.

My point is, the 970 will definitely be competetive with the Wintel world but has yet to prove it's trample-all-over-ness.

MM

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: MartianMatt ]</p>
post #145 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by kraig911:
<strong>everyone sure has gotten their expectations up. There has been no announcement that apple will even use the 970 or anything else for that matter. THey could do something completely arbitruary. Lets get back to earth. Mac users this is Houston... do you read me?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure I follow you. Where would Apple go if they don't use the 970. They surely aren't going to hit 8 Billion of revenue with the G4...PERIOD. I realize you're probably the type of person that doesn't believe stuff until it's actually announced but it would really take someone really dense to discount the "mounds" of information available. This really is an unguarded secret. The only people that will be purchasing G4 Powermacs are the ones that can't wait.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #146 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
That assumes you're correct that it takes 60 days to fab the PPC970 and I'm not convinced that's the case. It may take 60 days (or so) to ramp up to full production level yields, but that doesn't mean there won't be chips available (although constrained) to the market before then.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Added to this is Apple's penchant for anouncing new systems before they actually ship. They might have everything in place and make the anouncement when they get the first batch of production chips and have tested a few for quality & compatibility.

How about a May announcement and 1st July shipping?

MM
post #147 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:

<strong>Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people!</strong>

Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".</strong><hr></blockquote>

Anybody who doesn't take credit for something they didn't do could never be president nowadays.
post #148 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
That assumes you're correct that it takes 60 days to fab the PPC970 and I'm not convinced that's the case. It may take 60 days (or so) to ramp up to full production level yields, but that doesn't mean there won't be chips available (although constrained) to the market before then.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, my mistake. I really was under the impression, from other sources, that the actual process from beginning to end in manufacturing a cpu took about 60 days. I mean that's a lot of itty bitty lines to etch and fill with Cu and to do it on what 6-9 layers of silicon.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #149 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Better: Why didn't Apple update the 15" PB, and why hasn't it now that the channel has been bone dry for some time?

How many 17" PB's have shipped? Over at MacNN, there are several increasingly furious threads about shipping delays.<hr></blockquote>
I think this is likely to have more to do with contractual obligations than with any CPU plans. As I recall, Apple recently switched (or added) a new LCD screen supplier and/or has a new laptop manufacturer, so existing component shortages due to the transition is the most likely culprit here.
[quote]As an idle thought, how many 1.42 GHz PowerMacs have actually shipped?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that many, they've only been shipping for a few months now and demand has been slack. If Apple is purposely reducing channel inventory they probably started weeks ago.

If.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #150 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>If Apple is purposely reducing channel inventory they probably started weeks ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Reducing inventory of NEW machines shortly after announcing them...it's a sad time, currently. Oh the difference a few months will make!
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #151 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>I mean that's a lot of itty bitty lines to etch and fill with Cu and to do it on what 6-9 layers of silicon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well yeah, but they don't do them one line at a time!

Seriously though, I think the big problem is not so much the actual time it takes to do deposition and etch the traces, etc. but more in determining what the optimal time and technique to use at each stage is. Initially, it's an ongoing process that's constantly being tweaked, but once you hit a sweet spot, you pretty much nail it down and crank them out. And judging by the way they went from 1.8Ghz at the top end of the range (in October) to 1.8GHz at the bottom end (now), I'd say they've come pretty far in determining what that "sweet spot" is.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #152 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
What do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>

As to the 970's production timetable, I believe that they stated that these will ship i the secnd half of the year. So the earliest we will see something from them is July 1st (the 1st day of the7th month) and the latest would be December 31st of 03.

Now pure speculation, IBM is now touting a tope end at introduction of 2.5 Ghz, since the top end speed of a chip is determined by testing the chips then I would think that they have some initial test units off of the production line to back up this statement, and are preparing to go into full production very soon. They probably need to build up an inventory before they start shipping them, and some final assembly time at Apple....say 90 days earliest till a shipping 970 hits the market. I think that it is very possable that Apple might have shipping units at Macworld this summer, and that would be a great time to introduce and demo a dual 970 PM running OS X 10.3 in a Maya bake-off.
post #153 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Rhumgod:
<strong>Reducing inventory of NEW machines shortly after announcing them...it's a sad time, currently. Oh the difference a few months will make!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I said IF. It's just as likely (no, more likely) it's a blip in the supply chain and nothing to do with inventory reduction.
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
post #154 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>I said IF.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I know; it's just the way I read and interpretted it the first time that struck me as funny that Apple would be clearing inventory when they just announced the 1.42s. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #155 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>There's been some talk about Apple incorporating the Bochs emulation (open-source Windows emulator for Unix) system into OS X, possibly as soon as 10.3. <a href="http://bochs.sourceforge.net/" target="_blank">Bochs homepage</a>

That would be the REAL butt-kicker - if the 970+Bochs gives Apple native IA-32 emulation that is nearly as fast as the best x86 hardware, built right into the OS, who needs Marklar?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, Bochs is so amazingly slow that I think you may as well give up on that idea.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #156 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>Well... You have the possibility to buy a cheap peecee and run OSX on it, or you will have a PIV crushing PPC 970 with OSX on it.. Consumers buy peecee's AND OSX, top-end d00d's buy PPC 970's with OSX... Apple's marketshare KABOOOMS. ==&gt; Apple sells more macs ==&gt; More marketshare ==&gt; More Apple sales... -Get my point? </strong><hr></blockquote>

oh i think i get it now <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" /> ... "get this copy of the great Mac OS X Demo for PC for just $100 and look how well it runs on bad hardware!!! after that take a look at the new OS X on a PowerMac970 and be blown away!!!" hmmm ... ok if the windows-people finished playing windows they can try Mac OS X Demo... i don't care... <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #157 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

Unfortunately, Bochs is so amazingly slow that I think you may as well give up on that idea. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The question that begs to be answered Mokis what and how long would it take to make it as robust or, preferably, more robust than VPC?
post #158 of 477
All the power in the world is not going to make Bochs a champion.

I find it ironic that VPC costs more than a PC now. Hell if you need a PC $300 will take care of that easily. I don't want Apple to spend one Iota of time ingrating that horrible codebase into OSX. I prefer OSX to ship "virus" free
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #159 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

Unfortunately, Bochs is so amazingly slow that I think you may as well give up on that idea. </strong><hr></blockquote>

From what I gather, Bochs has been basically a one-man operation. How much of its sluggishness is just due to inefficient coding (no offense intended to Kevin Lawton, if you're out there)? I would imagine Apple engineers could massage his code to a fare-thee-well...

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #160 of 477
I'm mostly interested in SpecFP, so I dropped the others for simplicity.

[quote]Originally posted by MartianMatt:
<strong>My point is, the 970 will definitely be competetive with the Wintel world but has yet to prove it's trample-all-over-ness.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

SpecFP estimates:
[code]
1x G4+ 1.0GHz 187
1x G4+ 1.4GHz 261
2x G4+ 1.4GHz 523
1x P4 3.4GHz 1249

1x 970 1.8GHz 1051
1x 970 2.5GHz 1459
2x 970 2.5GHz 2918
4x 970 2.5GHz 5839
</pre><hr></blockquote>

The multi-CPU P4's & Xeons have heat issues & cost through the nose. (Yes, there are things more expensive than Macs.)

That's not the main thing though.

All you need to do is read the line "2xG4" and the line "2x 970"

5.57x as fast. Trample-all-overness.

And the thing that's been the big hurdle historically at Apple to Quads is the _bus_. With the bus fixed, a Quad-ppc can easily undercut a Quad-Xeon in price... Which means the '4x 970' line might be interesting.

Having the bus fixed should also be a HUGE benefit to AltiVec, which isn't reflected (at all) in the Spec numbers. No Mac-types were too concerned when 'pc Hz' was around 1.3-1.5x Mac Hz - AV quite effective for what it does.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › [Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ?