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 5

post #161 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>

A separate idea: Would it be possible that Apple has their own IA-32 emulation environment in the works (i.e. not Bochs OR VPC)?
"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 #162 of 477
I'm still trying to grasp why Apple would benefit from emulating the crap that is Windows.

Switchers are looking to get AWAY from Wintel not stare out it once again when booting into OSX.

Apple's got much more stuff to work on than integrating Windows.

Funny how most of the Mac users ranting about "losing" VPC didn't even own a copy. So much for VPC being an indespensible app <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
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 #163 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown:
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tomb of the Unknown, that's all well and good, but I believe it still takes about 60 days to manufacture a cpu from start to finish.

Ok, I'm asking for help. :confused:

The Pentium took about 90 days to manufacture, around the clock, 24 hours a day production time, from start to finish . In previous posts here and elsewhere, the time to manufacture cpu's has been mentioned to be about 60 days, from start to finish.

Does any one know if this has been significantly reduced?
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 #164 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>I'm still trying to grasp why Apple would benefit from emulating the crap that is Windows.

Switchers are looking to get AWAY from Wintel not stare out it once again when booting into OSX.

Apple's got much more stuff to work on than integrating Windows.

Funny how most of the Mac users ranting about "losing" VPC didn't even own a copy. So much for VPC being an indespensible app <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

"I would love to try out OS X but I have this huge investment in all this Windows software - I can't afford to buy a new Mac along with new versions (where they exist) of all my old software!"

An example from my own life: I'm teaching an online chemistry course. One of my students sent me her assignments in WordPerfect format. I have Office X, but I can't open .wpd files with it. I had to download it to my Windows box so I could run WordPerfect. Sure would have been nice to have been able to load WordPerfect on my Mac. I don't need Windows emulation often enough to justify VPC, but the alternative is generally having to deal with two computers.

There are thousands of people running around with VPC on their PowerBooks because they need to access both OSes and only have one computer available.
"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 #165 of 477
Think about this when you think about Markler.

Apple killed the clones a long time ago. They want to control the software AND the hardware. This has its pros and cons, but Apple can do good things by controlling the operating system and the hardware that runs it.

If they put out an x86 version of OS X, they lose control of the hardware. And most people won't spend money to buy a consumer Mac when they can get a decent PC for half the price and still run a superior operating system. Apple will get some money off of the OS license and possibly increase marketshare, but I wouldn't call these people switchers and I sure wouldn't call this strategy a success. I don't see them running OS X on x86 and then realizing that they should have paid twice as much to run it on Apple hardware. I'll bet that Apple would rather sell a 1499$ iMac than a 130$ OS X license and have the hardware control severed.

I believe that Apple would use Markler as a last resort, as something to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.

Just think about it. It's not the win-win situation that some of you believe.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
post #166 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:
<strong>Think about this when you think about Markler.

Apple killed the clones a long time ago. They want to control the software AND the hardware. This has its pros and cons, but Apple can do good things by controlling the operating system and the hardware that runs it.

If they put out an x86 version of OS X, they lose control of the hardware. And most people won't spend money to buy a consumer Mac when they can get a decent PC for half the price and still run a superior operating system. Apple will get some money off of the OS license and possibly increase marketshare, but I wouldn't call these people switchers and I sure wouldn't call this strategy a success. I don't see them running OS X on x86 and then realizing that they should have paid twice as much to run it on Apple hardware. I think they'd rather sell a 1499$ iMac than a 130$ OS X license and have the hardware control severed.

I believe that Apple would use Markler as a last resort, as something to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.

Just think about it. It's not the win-win situation that some of you believe.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple killed the clones becouse they were not increasing the market share of the Macintosh OS computers significantly enough to offset the loss in market share of Apples Macintosh hardware. Basically the Clones were eating into Apples sales too much without attracting enough "switchers" so that Apple could make up for the loss of hardware sales with gains in software licenses.

Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: @homenow ]</p>
post #167 of 477
I wonder if the delayed 17" might ship with a 970.
post #168 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by shawk:
<strong>I wonder if the delayed 17" might ship with a 970.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Please tell me that was a joke. Not going to happen.
- Snowster
post #169 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>


Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: @homenow ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's why I'm stoked about the notion of built-in, fast IA-32 emulation in OS X. Instead of moving OS X to PC boxes, we move Windows to Apple boxes. Apple still controls the hardware, but also offers a hand up to fence-sitters. As the new switcher buy new software, they get OS X native versions for better performance, but meanwhile their old software runs just fine.

I'm probably getting carried away with this, but it is possible that the 970 could offer high enough performance that it can offer an emulated Windows environment on par with the the best x86 systems. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Macintosh were the fastest Windows computer around?
"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 #170 of 477
[quote] Apple killed the clones becouse they were not increasing the market share of the Macintosh OS computers significantly enough to offset the loss in market share of Apples Macintosh hardware. Basically the Clones were eating into Apples sales too much without attracting enough "switchers" so that Apple could make up for the loss of hardware sales with gains in software licenses.

Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes. <hr></blockquote>

You can't tell me that PCs at half to two thirds the cost of a Mac wouldn't eat into Apple sales. Even when Apple is tearing Intel a new asshole with the 970, people would buy the cheap PC and run OS X becuase there are plenty of things people can do with the hundreds and hundreds of dollars they save by going with PC hardware. Not everyone buys the highest end machines.
post #171 of 477
Regarding mokis post.
The only "conventional wisdom" (among us rumorfreaks) about the 970 and apple hardware I can think of is:

1. Apple systems with the 970 will probably be available in September-October. Possibly later, but not earlier.

2. The 970 might perhaps possibly maybe go into the powerbook before years end.(If Desktops get it as early as Sept-Oct, that is)

3. Consumer products won't get the 970 until way later than the pro machines. Second half of 2004 if we're lucky.

moki, do you agree to the above being conventional wisdom about apple and the 970, or am i missunderstanding your post?

post #172 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>

WWDC / Quicktime Live?

could this be a possible release date? The 'hollywood' crowd would be in the same room as the developers...
HEE HEE!! Dual G5 2Ghz. 2 Gig RAM. Yeah baby.
Reply
HEE HEE!! Dual G5 2Ghz. 2 Gig RAM. Yeah baby.
Reply
post #173 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>


Ok, let's just look at the facts:

1) the 970 has Altivec ?.
2) The 970 is a 32/64 bit CPU with no emulation for 32 bit
3) the G4 is tanked, end of life and suffering from major low clock speeds and poor performance.

1+2+3 = 970
HEE HEE!! Dual G5 2Ghz. 2 Gig RAM. Yeah baby.
Reply
HEE HEE!! Dual G5 2Ghz. 2 Gig RAM. Yeah baby.
Reply
post #174 of 477
On today's <a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-02-28#4868" target="_blank">MacBiddoille</a>...
&lt;&lt;
Thanks to anonymous for the info

IBM have had a welcome surprise at the onset of production of the PPC 970. The amount of valid processors reaching 2 Ghz or more has surpassed all their expectations. The chip should be available in July!

IBM's future chip plans:
In Spring 2004 it will be superceded with a 970CX version etched in 0.09 microns and reserved for portables. At the same time, the Power 5 will be available, starting at between 1.5 and 2.5 GHz. Further still, the PPC 980 will be a Power 5 light + Altivec expected to operate between 2.8 and 4.5 GHz. There should also be a super version which will be a Power 5 that is not castrated with Altivec. It will be named the PPC 9800. In 2006 we will be seeing the PPC 990...

As you'll have gathered, Apple's sales will take off

- [Rumor] Apple has very advanced prototypes of the PPC 970 motherboard (they received CPUs more than 2 months ago). As on other protypes that we've seen, the CPU is aligned at 45 degrees. The prototype supports DDR400, USB 2.0 and AGP 8x. It is very well advanced even though there are still some problems with the bus.
&gt;&gt;

My French is far from fluent but I think the facts are translated OK. I hope 'anonymous' is credible. Seems very promising but I'll leave it to those who know far more than me to draw whatever they will from this rumour.
post #175 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>Come on, they just released new ones. That delay is only on the dual 1.4, which is a new chip. The other models say "same day."
post #176 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

An example from my own life: I'm teaching an online chemistry course. One of my students sent me her assignments in WordPerfect format. I have Office X, but I can't open .wpd files with it. I had to download it to my Windows box so I could run WordPerfect.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Uh, all you need is MacLinks Plus. It converts WP files to mac office. And it converts hundreds of other file formats as well!

<a href="http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html</a>
HEE HEE!! Dual G5 2Ghz. 2 Gig RAM. Yeah baby.
Reply
HEE HEE!! Dual G5 2Ghz. 2 Gig RAM. Yeah baby.
Reply
post #177 of 477
Hmmmm. What was that picture a while back showing a blurry cpu at a 45* angle?!


[quote] NB: Motorola 7457 will still have a place in the Apple product line. It's going in the new iPod!

vinney57

Well fark my old boots...I've gone all tingly...
I think the implications of this are huge. One of them is the likelyhood of OSX on Intel...Oh yes my friends. The move to Intel was espoused as a solution to performance problems...how wrong we were. The port to Intel will be an aggressive move aimed right at Microsnot's arse, Think about it, if you are totally confident that you have the best specced, best designed, FASTEST machines around then there is nothing to fear. Get the great unwashed playing with OSX on their digusting beige boxes and then sell 'em a REAL computer...Oh the irony!

I can't stop smiling....

Anonymous Karma
Junior Member

Originally posted by moki:

there may be more than one bag of sand, too... two more that I can think of actually... I posted it here as well:

Remember that about the same time moki started talking about GP-UL, he was also making unhelpful yet teasing comments about OS X on x86.

Folks, I think there's more here than meets the eye.

<hr></blockquote>

The three prongs of Moki's trident.

More and more intriguing is an Apple/Intel 'X' Marklar 'marketshare' Mac that tears M$ a new *sshole as they try to 'Palladium' an unsuspecting and gullible public. That would be a steel capped punt to M$'s nuts. If you've got 970-990s coming on tap... When do you do Marklar?

From a position of strength.

The 970 on the PPC side...and disatisfaction with M$'s Palladium will open up a window of opportunity for Apple that they won't be getting for another decade.

This is their chance to go for M$'s throat.

Bundle a free copy of 'Aqua Open Office' with every Mac sold in Apple stores?

A PPC 970 Mac that can emulate a 1 gig Pentium 3 under Virtual PC? (Cynic in me. Can you guess why M$ bought to kill VPC? )

You aint getting to 8 Billion turnover unless you have something compelling to bring to your product line.

That aint another bumped G4 tower folks.

It has to be something more compelling. Now I can see why Freddy Anderson and Apple are being more bullish. (I can also see why Steve Jobs blurted his 10% figure!)

970.
Loads more software.
Loads more Apple stores to shift kit.
Marklar to 'demo' 'X' to a PC owning 95%, many of whom are p*ssed at M$'s pending licensing gluttony.
Put 970 and no license fees in X-serve?
See some Fortune 500 companies doing an 'Enterprise' switch.

Watch the skies begin to fall...

I'm so happy, my head's caving in...

Lemon Bon Bon :eek: <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #178 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>

...so, what ideas should we not give up on?

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: McCrab ]</p>

MacPro 2 x 3GHz, 8GB RAM, 4x1000 HD, 2x23" ACD
15" rMBP; 17" MBP

Reply

MacPro 2 x 3GHz, 8GB RAM, 4x1000 HD, 2x23" ACD
15" rMBP; 17" MBP

Reply
post #179 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by The Mactivist:
<strong>


Uh, all you need is MacLinks Plus. It converts WP files to mac office. And it converts hundreds of other file formats as well!

<a href="http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

In case you hadn't noticed, that costs $100 - about the same price as VPC. It used to come with the Mac OS, but that ended with OS 8, IIRC. I already had a PC with WP loaded, so that was considerably more cost-effective. Since I encounter this situation rarely, it isn't worth getting MLP or VPB. And if my Mac had built-in emulation, I wouldn't need MLP, either...

Dedicated Mac users generally have little use for Windows emulation. Its main value would be in enticing switchers by lowering the "entry fee" to getting onto OS X.

[ 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 #180 of 477
[quote] Its main value would be in enticing switchers by lowering the "entry fee" to getting onto OS X.
<hr></blockquote>



95% to aim at. They've already got Winblows.

They aint got a Mac. That's a big Pie to aim at.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #181 of 477
<a href="http://www.looprumors.com" target="_blank">http://www.looprumors.com</a>

Moki, did you read the 'opinion' piece on the front page?

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #182 of 477
Nevyn, you almost completely ignored my post.
[quote]<strong>
[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>
</strong>&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
These figures you have quoted for the 970s other than the 1.8 are highly optimistic. You will not get linear scaling unless, as I said, this processor is extra-ordinary (ie, not like all others). SPECfp2000 doesn't get benefit from MP systems. Look at this page and tell me which systems get 2x perf for 2x CPUs:
<a href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/rfp2000.html" target="_blank">http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/rfp2000.html</a>
[QUOTE]<strong>
The multi-CPU P4's & Xeons have heat issues & cost through the nose. (Yes, there are things more expensive than Macs.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
While P4's and Xeons are hotter than G4s (and 970s) they still ship and work well. And for similarly configured systems x86 systems are the same or lower price. (Even name brand systems.)
[quote]<strong>
That's not the main thing though.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You missed my point - the comparison of the x86 and 970 was the main thing. Please re-read my post.
[quote]<strong>
All you need to do is read the line "2xG4" and the line "2x 970"

5.57x as fast. Trample-all-overness.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure I agree the 970 will trample the G4 - that's not what I was talking about. If you wan't to argue you are going to have to change the subject.
[quote]<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So MP P4s and Xeons are hot and expensive but Quad-PPC 970s are going to be cool and cheap?

I agree that the new bus will make quads easier and VMX/AltiVec scream. Again, if you wan't to argue...

I was making the point that people should have a realistic expectation of the performance of the 2.5 GHz 970. It will be competetive (with x86) but has yet to prove its trample-all-over-ness (vs x86). Personally I *hope* it does but I think it is a wait and see issue, particularly considering Intel are doing some serious improvements to the Prescott core.

MM

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: MartianMatt ]</p>
post #183 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by LowB-ing:
<strong>moki, do you agree to the above being conventional wisdom about apple and the 970, or am i missunderstanding your post?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

err... what did you say?
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 #184 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>
Ok, I'm asking for help. :confused:

The Pentium took about 90 days to manufacture, around the clock, 24 hours a day production time, from start to finish . In previous posts here and elsewhere, the time to manufacture cpu's has been mentioned to be about 60 days, from start to finish.

Does any one know if this has been significantly reduced?</strong><hr></blockquote>

When we order micros (from Motorola, for example), it takes them 8-12 weeks to get them to our production lines. (These are wimpy 16-bit micros, by the way.) What takes time is for them to put our program into ROM.

Beats me what they do with Pentiums. It's already designed-- they just have to pack sand, er, so to speak.
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #185 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

Well, I meant two separate fairly surprising items... at least based on current conventional wisdom re: the PPC970's and Apple's new machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>



...or maybe you're trying to tell me that you'd rather not answer, and I'm just not getting the hint. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #186 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

there may be more than one bag of sand, too... two more that I can think of actually... I posted it here as well:

<a href="http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum64/HTML/001106.html" target="_blank">http://www.ambrosiasw.com/webboard/Forum64/HTML/001106.html</a>

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

Another thought on new suprises:

If the 970 was indeed partially developed for Apple (the proof is when it shows up on apple.com), then what was IBM's incentive to make this processor? I doubt AIX and POWER-line Linux worksation/server sales are hurting right now, especially with the 1.45Ghz POWER 4+ recently made available.

IBM is a business, and recently quite a successful one. Apple, on the other hand, is seen by many investors as being in a precarious position in the market - dependent on an influx of switchers to survive - either from Windows or from their own OS 9. To make a significant new processor designed to specs which put it in competition not with Sun Blade 1000s but with Dell P4 machines indicates that either (1) IBM thinks they can sell a lot of Linux and AIX on a new architecture with no professional apps available, or (2) it was designed for Apple, and perhaps IBM is intending on not just selling Linux on a new architecture, but an existing architecture with existing users and apps - OS X.

Basically, what I'm saying is - if IBM put the money into designing this for Apple (not that they wouldn't get any use out if it themselves, but I don't think they would have made it this ambitious otherwise) then there's some kickback for them in the deal. Whether that's IBM workstations running OS X or something completely different I don't know.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Anonymous Karma ]</p>
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
Reply
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
Reply
post #187 of 477
So we all go out and get one, right? But then what'll happen to these boards? No more G5 talk, everyone is happy, duals that satisfy even the most demanding 3d'er and gamer. We might actually have to do something with these machines!

I'm curious as to how Apple will use the power of the 970s and 980s in the future. They brought vidoe editing to the masses to take advantage of the G4. What next?
post #188 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by MartianMatt:
<strong>Nevyn, you almost completely ignored my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry

[quote]Originally posted by MartianMatt:
<strong>These figures you have quoted for the 970s other than the 1.8 are highly optimistic. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Granted. But all of them got the same optimistic treatment -&gt; not totally off into left field. And the 970's bus might be increasing in there - not sure. Multi-CPUs do nothing for Spec - but they _DO_ have dramatic effects on real code -&gt; "effective SpecFP". They'll have to come up with something else soon anyway - hyper-threading seems like MP to the program.

[quote]Originally posted by MartianMatt:
<strong>So MP P4s and Xeons are hot and expensive but Quad-PPC 970s are going to be cool and cheap?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cool_er_ and Cheap_er_.
Some Xeon MP _chips_ cost more than some PowerMacs. They have a larger die-size, and appearently are more complex to arrange into an MP config. Shrug. The heat dissipation stats are scary.

[quote]Originally posted by MartianMatt:
<strong>It will be competetive (with x86) but has yet to prove its trample-all-over-ness (vs x86).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok.
What I was trying to say is this:
The G4 when introduced had a (very brief) reign at the top. It hasn't been until this last year/year and a half that Mac people have really started hurting speedwise. (Ignoring _price_) Part of the reason it hasn't hurt so much as P4's Hz climbed like a rocket is Altivec - which is somewhat crippled in current G4/G4+ chips simply by the bus.

The 970 should _demolish_ the G4+. The bus improvements, extra FPU... That's what the Spec stats _show_. You are right, those stats do not show the 970 crushing the P4....

But anything that demolishes the G4+ _that_ bad should be better off that 'competitve with x86'. Spec didn't show the G4 doing as well against the Pentiums as the photoshop tests/RC5/other altivecable tests showed either.

At the very least, I'd say that a custom written demo utilizing the 970's features should be disturbing. The P4's version wouldn't have access to 64-bit calcs, which we'd be sure to use lots of, the P4's version couldn't keep all the computation units filled (since they can't all be used simultaneously), and AV with a lot more bus to play with....
post #189 of 477
i want more posts from moki....

and where is programmer??

i love reading posts by people who are like 800 times smarter than me....
g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #190 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

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 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I understand it, Bochs is written in C++. There's no way that's going to run at decent speed without a clean rewrite.

Bochs is so slow it's ridiculous. I can try to launch an old DOS game, and it doesn't even launch before I eventually get fed up and kill the damn thing. Sure, the 970 will be a lot faster than my G4/450, but not that much faster...
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #191 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Karma:
<strong>Basically, what I'm saying is - if IBM put the money into designing this for Apple (not that they wouldn't get any use out if it themselves, but I don't think they would have made it this ambitious otherwise) then there's some kickback for them in the deal. Whether that's IBM workstations running OS X or something completely different I don't know.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you are missing the real incentive for IBM. The POWER line of CPUs are the brains of mid to high-end servers. Time is showing a huge market for low-end (blade) style servers - this lite version of the POWER CPUs are for that end of the spectrum.

IBM has a huge incentive to stay competitive in their back yard. The 970 will allow them to span the server spectrum from high to low. Apple might have put a chunk of cash into the development of this chip (?) - but IBM sure as hell is reaping some benefits from it as well.
Anyone for pie?
Reply
Anyone for pie?
Reply
post #192 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by The Pie Man:
<strong>

I think you are missing the real incentive for IBM. The POWER line of CPUs are the brains of mid to high-end servers. Time is showing a huge market for low-end (blade) style servers - this lite version of the POWER CPUs are for that end of the spectrum.

IBM has a huge incentive to stay competitive in their back yard. The 970 will allow them to span the server spectrum from high to low. Apple might have put a chunk of cash into the development of this chip (?) - but IBM sure as hell is reaping some benefits from it as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>

One, I didn't say that they won't benefit; I just opined that those benefits wouldn't be enough to make IBM go for this expensive proposition.

Two, IBM is committing all it's resources to Linux, and for running a blade server, Linux on Intel works fine. In fact, the Linux/970 solution has a major disadvantage of having just about no available software and only running two distributions (SuSE 8.0 and RedHat 7.1, which by RedHat's own mouth is obsolete). RH may have a release of 8.0/8.1 in the wings, but for now Linux/POWER is immature.
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
Reply
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
Reply
post #193 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by CharlesS:
<strong>
As I understand it, Bochs is written in C++. There's no way that's going to run at decent speed without a clean rewrite.

Bochs is so slow it's ridiculous. I can try to launch an old DOS game, and it doesn't even launch before I eventually get fed up and kill the damn thing. Sure, the 970 will be a lot faster than my G4/450, but not that much faster...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yup, I see that now after nosing around the Bochs site for a while. Obviously, Bochs is not the answer, and the columnists recommending it didn't know what they were talking about ( :eek: I'm shocked! How could that be???? )

Ah, well. Maybe Apple is writing their own, or perhaps 'tis not to be...
"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 #194 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Karma:
<strong>

Another thought on new suprises:

If the 970 was indeed partially developed for Apple (the proof is when it shows up on apple.com), then what was IBM's incentive to make this processor? I doubt AIX and POWER-line Linux worksation/server sales are hurting right now, especially with the 1.45Ghz POWER 4+ recently made available.

IBM is a business, and recently quite a successful one. Apple, on the other hand, is seen by many investors as being in a precarious position in the market - dependent on an influx of switchers to survive - either from Windows or from their own OS 9. To make a significant new processor designed to specs which put it in competition not with Sun Blade 1000s but with Dell P4 machines indicates that either (1) IBM thinks they can sell a lot of Linux and AIX on a new architecture with no professional apps available, or (2) it was designed for Apple, and perhaps IBM is intending on not just selling Linux on a new architecture, but an existing architecture with existing users and apps - OS X.

Basically, what I'm saying is - if IBM put the money into designing this for Apple (not that they wouldn't get any use out if it themselves, but I don't think they would have made it this ambitious otherwise) then there's some kickback for them in the deal. Whether that's IBM workstations running OS X or something completely different I don't know.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Anonymous Karma ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM has had their own adgenda with the PowerPC since the beginning of the alliance. I'm not positive, but I would bet one of the main things that is driving their long term strategy is to free themselves from as much outside suppliers as possable, and the PowerPC allows them to do this, It also might bring in more vendors building PowerPC computers than currently exist, which means even more revenue for IBM. IBM looses potential profit (or a market cost advantage over the competition) with every Pentium based PC they sell, they are giving that profit to Intel for their processors and Microsoft for licensing fees.
post #195 of 477
For IBM, PowerPC + Linux == freedom.

No more Intel, no more Microsoft. They are again in charge of their destiny. If they have a client that can help bankroll the processor development by buying sufficient quantities (Apple), it is but icing on the cake.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: *l++ ]</p>
post #196 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>i want more posts from moki....

and where is programmer??

i love reading posts by people who are like 800 times smarter than me....
g</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree, where is programmer? He has some great insights. And Moki has some great posts but I wish he would spill the beans and say what he expects.

I was wondering how many changes/updates are required to the OS kernel to support the 970 and its companion chip. I do not design computers so I was wondering how long it would take to develop the companion chip and the OS X updates that will make the whole thing run. I have to believe it is more work than going from the 7455 to the 7457, but how much more I haven't a clue.
post #197 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>

Yah, you could be correct . . . , but Apple would be throwing away alot of developement $$ (ie: since Feb 2000, do the math). Let's just say that an unrefutable source says that if the 970 isn't for Apple, then why were they involved in the chip's developement since it's inception (read 02/2000).

And "Rickag", I tend to agree with "Rhumgod", because the 970 production process testing was half way completed in early November 2002 on 200mm and 300mm wafers.
post #198 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Kurt:
<strong>
I was wondering how many changes/updates are required to the OS kernel to support the 970 and its companion chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That depends if Apple wants to support the 970 in both 32 and 64 bit modes. If they are only interested in the 32bit mode of operations/address space. Probably not that much.

There is a lot more work to do on the hardware side.
post #199 of 477
Playing the sandbag game:

- The 970 is quad pumped giving an effective bus of 1.8 Ghz! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Yes, a bus faster than any G4...
- IBM licenses OSX for some markets. This breaks the long time business objection of Apple being single source.
- The 970 is used across the board. Prices are set more by the box and features than by processor.
- The towers are dual with a quad on top or in a rack.
- The 12" powerbook replaces the iBook. A version with a polycarbonate case is called the eBook.
- Apple engineers a graphics card that has a GPU from ATI or nVidia but also has a G4ish chip: one integer, no fpu, one altivec and a pile of L2. Quartz moves entirely to the graphics board. Now you know what Racer was doing. Code name: Ludicrous Drive.
- The UI becomes totally vector based and thus scalable for different pixel densities.
- Apple and IBM intro high end monitors that are 200ppi.
- Apple intros a headless, affordable, iBriq for the hacker/server/renderfarm crowds.
- Apple engineers a memory controller with a large "L3ish" built in. Memory controller controls it completely. In this way it can optimise it for many processors at once while minimising bus snooping. The "L3" is large enough to preclude the need for external RAM in some of the more modest machines...like the iBriq.
- Bandwidth is so high every machine can channel Steve's RDF in real time. Steve turns into a big glowing ball on stage and ascends to become the first Star Child. Stanley Kubrick rolls in his grave.



[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: David M ]</p>
post #200 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Come on, they just released new ones. That delay is only on the dual 1.4, which is a new chip. The other models say "same day."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just checked again, and now the dual is 7-10 days and you're right the others are at one day. (I swear they said 3-4 weeks last time I checked...)

<img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
"Spec" is short for "specification" not "speculation".
Reply
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 ?