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 12

post #441 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Guys, that Nintendo Nexus idea came from a post over on IGN's GameCube forums. They had a contest to 'design the next Nintendo Console' and that was one of the entries.

Someone has been posting it to various news sites as the real thing and it's taken on a life of it's own.

Very embarassing, actually. </strong><hr></blockquote>

TOASTED!!!!

he he he ...

Geez guys, 2GHz G4? BLUE FRICKEN' LAZER?!?! What would it have took ... attached to shark head?

&lt;smug&gt;

I got burned a while back myself, so at least I get to enjoy this one ...

&lt;/smug&gt;
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #442 of 477
Back to the topic. <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html" target="_blank">ZDNet</a> says: [quote] IBM says a later PowerPC 970 will reach 2.5GHz using a 90-nanometre manufacturing process.<hr></blockquote>
:confused:

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: costique ]</p>
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 #443 of 477
thats based on the orginal press release where the 970 was introed now they changed their tune to 1.8 on the low end then the high.
If you had game like me You would still have your girl.
Reply
If you had game like me You would still have your girl.
Reply
post #444 of 477
I don't know whom to believe. One possibility is that the 1.82.5 GHz stuff we discuss was a wrong piece of info and that's why IBM pulled it back. The other is that it's all true and IBM pulled it because they wanted to make a surprise. Like Santa, you know.
In the first case ZDNet provided the most accurate info, which I doubt; in the latter they just reposted outdated quotes.
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 #445 of 477
There is no reason that the PPC 970 could not scale higher in Mhz than an athlon.
The ppc 970 is up to fourteen stage vs twelve for the AThlon and seven for the G4. IBM is also a top chip maker. 2,5 ghz on SOI 0,13 do not seems impossible.
post #446 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>I don't know whom to believe. One possibility is that the 1.8?2.5 GHz stuff we discuss was a wrong piece of info and that's why IBM pulled it back. The other is that it's all true and IBM pulled it because they wanted to make a surprise. Like Santa, you know.
In the first case ZDNet provided the most accurate info, which I doubt; in the latter they just reposted outdated quotes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

apple likes options and a steady Mhz increase is one of them. so i think they asked ibm to pull the press release. so apple can introduce a 1.8Ghz ppc970 (maybe mp) as highend machine with a 1.6Ghz and 1.4Ghz as middle and low end powermacs. so the real fast chips can be introduced in a super powermac at mwsf2004 or so, as a "oh, one more thing" santa surprice.

not IBM likes surprices: steve jobs does. so the reason to pull a press release with such an impact is because one of you're main customers asks you to. one of the reason is because it would hurt apple sales.

and don't give me the "ibm is to big to listen to apple" shit, because apple is much to important for the entire computer industry to ignore. yes, size does mather... and apple has a very big one in its pants (everybody in the industry thinks so: if apple shows it's stuff everybody pais attention :eek: )

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: gar ]</p>
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #447 of 477
So you're saying that IBM won't introduce their new servers with the 2.5 GHz Power PC 970 just to appease Apple? I don't think so.

Let's say that the 2.5 GHz processors are ready to go in July and they put the 1.8 GHz 970 in the new machines as the 'Fastest' machine.

If IBM launches their server with dual 2.5 GHz 970s, then we know Apple is holding back. That's not going to make customers happy. We want the power and speed, and we want it two years ago. For Apple to hold back now is not acceptable. We'll take the 2.5 GHz Power PC 970 for a year if we need to; we just want it ASAP.

Not only that, but we're expecting big things from this 970, including the ability to increase clock speed on a regular basis, epsecially with the drop from .13 to .009. I hope that IBM puts out the new chips so fast that it's hard for Apple to keep up.

I hop that IBM put out the new chips so fast that Apple will have the opportunity to put the 970 not only in the PowerBook, but the 970 in the iMac fairly quickly.

Imagine this for a top end line up a year from now:

Power Mac G5
Dual Processor 2.5 GHz Power PC 970

PowerBook G5
1.8 GHz Power PC 970

iMac
1.4 GHz Power PC 970

iBook
1.0 GHz Power PC G4

Why can't this be a realistic outlook? Apple needs this type of speed for their machines.

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
post #448 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>So you're saying that IBM won't introduce their new servers with the 2.5 GHz Power PC 970 just to appease Apple? I don't think so.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>

me neither and i didn't say that, i said they pulled the press release because apple asked them to. todays 1.42Ghz (oops have to edit my last post) DP customers will be mad as hell when apple introduces a 2.5Ghz highend and a 1.8Ghz low end as next pm at mwny2003 or so.


.... :confused: <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0"> , okay now i think i understand what you mean...

or they introduce single processor configurations then they can go on.
but nevertheless i think they pulled the press release because of apple.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #449 of 477
Well that's kind of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. They already let the cat out of the bag.

Now they think they can pull the wool over our eyes? (Okay, enough with the stupid sayings.)

It's like Apple getting Toshiba to pull the PR on the 40 GB iPod HD press release. It's too late- we know the drive is available and now we're expecting new iPods. If we don't get them, customers will be unhappy.

The same is true with the 970. Perhaps Apple does want to surprise us, but IBM is going to release their 970 servers at some point, and Mac buyers aren't going to be happy to see the 970s running much faster in those servers. It will mean that Apple could have shipped them but didn't.

How embarassing would it be if you could run Mac OS X 20% faster in Mac on Linux on a non-Apple machine? It wouldn't be good, that's for sure.
post #450 of 477
To whomever commented that Nintendo was already committed to 2004:

It appears then that one of two things has happened. 1.) Nintendo has decided to change business models only AFTER losing a ton of money, or 2.) What did you expect them to say?

As for DSP's, not happening. QE is Raycer's contribution. No one is going to use PPC reference boards when they're an even worse value that Apple's typically overpriced hardware. Also, spending this money to put such silicon on board doen't get you much when CPU performance would eclipse it in a matter of months. Then again, a certain baseline of A/V performance would then always be there (on any mac) regardless of what CPU performance did or didn't do. It could make a better value out of your mac. But this still has nothing to do with raycer. QE is raycer, these were video guys, QE is a unique application of the GPU that seems like it is about 24 months ahead of anything by Windows guys. Money well spent, but it's spent now. They bought talent too, those guys are working on other things because you'll never unseat the ability of ATI and nVidia, or even VideoLogic and Matrox, to deliver more performance every six months-year. You spend the money custom designing hardware and the GPU makers soon make your efforts irrelevant -- that's why there is no raycer "chip" -- the rayer guys are just making the steady supply of otherr people's chips do more work for the mac than they would otherwise do, a good strategy.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #451 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>How embarassing would it be if you could run Mac OS X 20% faster in Mac on Linux on a non-Apple machine? It wouldn't be good, that's for sure. </strong><hr></blockquote>

We know Jobs knows it. Jobs also knows we know he knows it.
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 #452 of 477
[quote]To whomever commented that Nintendo was already committed to 2004:

It appears then that one of two things has happened. 1.) Nintendo has decided to change business models only AFTER losing a ton of money, or 2.) What did you expect them to say?<hr></blockquote>

This is fairly off topic, but who says that Nintendo is losing money? Up until a few months ago, Nintendo was the only company making a profit on their consoles. Sony is now also making a profit on their hardware.

Seriously, Nintendo doesn't go on the model of losing money on hardware and since they are the biggest seller of games on their platform, they are making tons of money. Don't forget that the GBA controls the handheld gaming market.

They are also the largest company in Japan. If they want to stay in the console business, they won't have a problem.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Apple discussion.
post #453 of 477
Well, I only mentioned it because Nintendo was offered up as evidence of PPC development. Just as you say, Nintendo doesn't like losing money on consoles, but the next generation basically demands that the console maker lose quite a bit of money on the consoles. I didn't say they're losing money, I said they will most likely lose a ton of money on the next generation (if they aren't very careful).

M$ is really spending a lot of cash on the xBox, of the three, I expected the xBox to die a lot sooner, but it's hanging in there and slowly winning franchises (or buying them.)

Sony has a lot of money and alternate cash flows, as does M$. I dunno if nintendo can sweat enought details to go it alone one more time. The safest route would be to take the gameboy and their gaming franchise and run for the platform agnostic hills.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #454 of 477
Well that's good and all Matsu, but remember that the Infinium Labs (a new comer to the market) and Sammy/Sega are planning new consoles. Supposedly Sega has been able to contain the power of the DC on a single chip and they are always working on new arcade boards. Who knows what will happen in 2005?
post #455 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Imagine this for a top end line up a year from now:

Power Mac G5
Dual Processor 2.5 GHz Power PC 970

PowerBook G5
1.8 GHz Power PC 970

iMac
1.4 GHz Power PC 970

iBook
1.0 GHz Power PC G4

Why can't this be a realistic outlook? Apple needs this type of speed for their machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>

i think your quit realistic about this, but, according to your own comments about my previous post, aren't these specs a little pessimistic? especially the highend tower looks a little weak, if, as you imply, the 2.5Ghz 970 will be introduced at mwny2003 or fall 2003. it almost looks like it stagnates like a G4. besides that: how will this processor act in a powerbook (powerconsumption/heatproduction), or will we see a G4 7557 at 1.8Ghz instead and is a 1Ghz ibook not a little underpowered (a clockspeed increase of 20% in 1 year) or will we indeed see a steady increase of clockspeed during the next 1 year with your expected specs as a result?
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #456 of 477
The iBook's clock speed has been advancing faster than any other (single processr) Mac model as of now.
post #457 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>As for DSP's, not happening. QE is Raycer's contribution. No one is going to use PPC reference boards when they're an even worse value that Apple's typically overpriced hardware. Also, spending this money to put such silicon on board doen't get you much when CPU performance would eclipse it in a matter of months. Then again, a certain baseline of A/V performance would then always be there (on any mac) regardless of what CPU performance did or didn't do. It could make a better value out of your mac. But this still has nothing to do with raycer. QE is raycer, these were video guys, QE is a unique application of the GPU that seems like it is about 24 months ahead of anything by Windows guys. Money well spent, but it's spent now. They bought talent too, those guys are working on other things because you'll never unseat the ability of ATI and nVidia, or even VideoLogic and Matrox, to deliver more performance every six months-year. You spend the money custom designing hardware and the GPU makers soon make your efforts irrelevant -- that's why there is no raycer "chip" -- the rayer guys are just making the steady supply of otherr people's chips do more work for the mac than they would otherwise do, a good strategy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I find it unlikely that the Racyer guys had anything at all to do with QE unless a couple of them just happened to be OpenGL experts and were transfered to the OpenGL team (entirely possible). The use of the GPU as a compositing engine isn't revolutionary -- many video games have been doing it since GPUs appears on the scene. What is revolutionary about it is that Apple finally put in the effort to make it happen at a system level.

You're right, VSPs in the chipset probably won't have anything to do with Quartz Extreme. QE is the compositing engine and the existing system uses the GPU and works fine. Much more likely, in addition to the other uses I listed, would be for the hypothetical VSPs to be used to accelerate Quartz the rasterizing engine. This piece of software operates to build the images in main memory before they are fed to the QE compositor. The GPUs are designed to rasterize triangles while Quartz primarily uses curves, thus GPU acceleration isn't likely any time soon and would be of questionable efficiency if it was done. A seperate VSP with full memory bandwidth to the system RAM, on the other hand, could possibly do a decent job of it. Whether or not any Raycer people were involved is irrelevent.

Apple has done the DSP thing before, and that didn't work out very well. That was also before they could integrate it into the chipset, and before VSPs came along and became as well understood as they are today. This would give Apple a new way to distinguish their hardware from the PC world and would certainly help in manipulating multimedia.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #458 of 477
For IBM the 970 is an alternativie to the Xeon. If the Xeon spec marks are about the same as the P4 3GHz, IBM will need 1.8 GHz to get parity and more than that for having an advantage. So for IBM to compete with their own dual Xeon blade servers they will need dual 970 at a high speed.

For Apple the internal competition is the lame dual G4 and for that even one 1.8 or a dual 1 GHz 970 is enough to be much faster . For Appe to compete with a single P4 3 GHz they will need either really fast 970 or midrange duals.

While ramping up IBM could keep the 970 above 1.8 GHz to use in their servers that sell in relative low numbers compared to personal computers. Apple could get the stuff at and below 1.8 GHz a lineup like SP 1.5, DP 1.5, DP 1.8 would induce a feeding frency among the Mac buyers. Even the lowend would be faster than the current top of the line and the top end 3 times as fast as the current dual 1.42 G4 and also much faster than a SP P4 3 GHz. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

So I think there is a way to keep both IBM and Apples customers happy

The notion that Apple should hold back speed to not annoy people that have G4s is stupidity! We G4 owners should know better:
1984 68000
1985
1986
1887 68020
1988 68030
1989
1990
1991 68040
1992
1993
1994 601
1995 604
1996
1997 G3
1998
1999 G4
2000
2001
2002
2003????

Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.

With the G4 as the longest "top of the line" CPU in the Macintosh history combined the infamous 500 MHz barrier and scaling problem a new CPU vastly superior to the G4 can only come as a surprise to ignorant

I got a new dual 1.25 earlier this week and I will be happy if the next low end tower is several times as fast as this one

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: DrBoar ]</p>
post #459 of 477
Apple can't afford to hold anything back, even if they have an advantage with the 970 (IF they have an advantage)

The market moves fast, and if you don't sell the fastest chip at your disposal today, it's only going to get hardeer to sell it tomorrow!

They can't hold anything back, they have to come with the fastest duals they can find AND LOWER PRICES.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #460 of 477
Well, porting OS X to 64-bit optimization is no small feat...
post #461 of 477
Uh oh....I'm starting to hear rumblings of 'raising prices, not specs' again.......so I take it the honeymoon is over Matsu?
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 #462 of 477
I tell ya, if Apple wants to stay in business they have to get a competitive desktop out there. Being two years late is better than never getting there, but with the 970 it's Apple's play.

They can get back up to a healthy marketshare by taking advantage of the very murky 64bit wintelon timeline, or they can get silly on price, and give wintelon a 18-24 months lead time to catch up.

Sell fast, now, often, and they'll be back in the game (with share in the 6-10% range a real possibility), put an elite price on it, Apple, and you will pretty squander the last clear chance you ever see to get back up to a safe maket share.

Increased performance can only get you so much, PRICES MUST SIMULTANEOUSLY COME DOWN.

Where is the reasonable priced tower? Granted an entry level PM at 1500 might look a lot better with a PPC970 in it, but the PM's (and the iMacs) are still from 200-500 too much.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #463 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>
The notion that Apple should hold back speed to not annoy people that have G4s is stupidity! We G4 owners should know better:
1984 68000
1985
1986
1887 68020
1988 68030
1989
1990
1991 68040
1992
1993
1994 601
1995 604
1996
1997 G3
1998
1999 G4
2000
2001
2002
2003????

Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

To be fair, I would differentiate the G4 (7400/10) and the G4+ (7450/55) as they are very different processors. Still, we are due for a change.
post #464 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>The same is true with the 970. Perhaps Apple does want to surprise us, but IBM is going to release their 970 servers at some point, and Mac buyers aren't going to be happy to see the 970s running much faster in those servers. It will mean that Apple could have shipped them but didn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly, and therefore we are sure to have the top-of-the-line 997 IBm can deliver. Or else Apple can't sell, and wont buy amy chips.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

It said on the spec sheet for the game cube that are confident it will dominate the next decade. Well, i guess they forgot about a little console that has a handful of games, ah, what's it called, uh, ah yes, PLAYSTATION. A 2.0ghz is fine, but the PS3 (which IBM is also making) is equal to 50 1.4ghz G4s (so I read ) as it does a teraflop. Add to that HUNDREDS of games and I don't see how the came cube is going to 'dominate' unless they mean M$'s Xbox defenition of dominate.

Should be nice either way tho, all I care about is M$ getting left behind in a strorm of dust so I can continue my evil laughter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Get real. You expect Sony to realese a game console which blows every single main frame on the planet out in the dust?

[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>

We know Jobs knows it. Jobs also knows we know he knows it. </strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Well that's good and all Matsu, but remember that the Infinium Labs (a new comer to the market) and Sammy/Sega are planning new consoles. Supposedly Sega has been able to contain the power of the DC on a single chip and they are always working on new arcade boards. Who knows what will happen in 2005?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Asteroids 2k5!
I would'nt expect a console from Sega in the near time.. And I'm talking at least 10 years from now.

[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But if the Motorola rumors are to believe, there actually was a 2002 'G5'.

[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>Well, porting OS X to 64-bit optimization is no small feat...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not true. OSX was made to be easily ported to 64 bit.
"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 #465 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>I tell ya, if Apple wants to stay in business they have to get a competitive desktop out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I obviously agree that they need an inexpensive desktop to push OS X into the business world, but I am not sure about the "if they want to stay in business." Apple is one of only a handful of computer companies still making money, even though we know better in terms of market share. I don't see them going belly up any time soon.

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #466 of 477
[quote]To be fair, I would differentiate the G4 (7400/10) and the G4+ (7450/55) as they are very different processors. Still, we are due for a change. <hr></blockquote>

The 604E at and above 250 MHz all the way up to 350 MHz with the backside bus to a L2 is also quite different from the first generation 604 but Apple kept the name as they have done wih the G3 that also have changed during its long life at the desktop.

I agree about the difficulty about determine when a CPU is new or not I just kept the names that Apple uses

BTW is there anyone who have any idea about the feasability of a 970 accelerator in G4 Mac computers?

I know that putting a much more powerful CPU usually end up with a limited performance gains due to other bottle necks. Like the 100 MHz 601 in a IIci or to some extent a G4/800 in a 7500/100
post #467 of 477
A 970 upgrade (if possible) would probably be underwhelming, as the 970 usually has 6.4GB/s of usuable bandwidth (3.2GB/s in each direction), but the G4's MPX bus can only supply 166MHz at 64bits wide, or 1.3GB/s total.

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #468 of 477
I agree with Stoo, it would be better to get a whole new system unless they have a 970 on the daughtercard with the companion chip / memory controller n the same card with DIMM slots on the same card leaving the DIMM slots on the motherboard useless vestiges. there would be need for an MPX to 970-bus bridge to access the motherboard peripheral controllers (like Firewire, ethernet, USB, sound, ATA, PCI, etc.) and I don't know who would invest in THAT project. My guess, not many.
post #469 of 477
I can see G4 upgrades working because the G4 supports both MaxBus and the 60x bus, which makes it theoretically compatible with every machine back to the 6100/60. The G3, of course, supports the 60x bus exclusively.

The 970 won't, so upgrade manufacturers will be faced with the unenviable task of bridging from the GigaBus to 60x/MaxBus, in effect coming up with their own companion chips. And the result would be a chronically starved 970 unless the upgrader basically included enough onboard RAM to cache system RAM more locally - if that would even work. The resulting card would not be cheap or available quickly unless something unlikely happened and a third party (or IBM) offered GigaBus-to-60x/MaxBus chips, or GigaBus-to-RapidIO and RapidIO-to-60x/MaxBus (so that there would be two companion chips linked serially).

We'll see a similar break when the G3 and G4 move to RapidIO with an onboard memory controller.

It won't be pretty.

[ 03-06-2003: 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 #470 of 477
[quote]
Originally posted by Fran441:
Imagine this for a top end line up a year from now (March 2004):

Power Mac G5 Dual Processor 2.5 GHz Power PC 970
PowerBook G5 1.8 GHz Power PC 970
...

Why can't this be a realistic outlook? Apple needs this type of speed for their machines.
<hr></blockquote>

Because need does not make magic happen? Just because Apple *needs* a God-machine does not mean that IBM can make it happen. Unless there's a run of bad luck (which is highly possible), we'll *probably* see a 1.8 GHz 970 PowerMac before March 2004.

[quote]
i think your quite realistic about this, but, according to your own comments about my previous post, aren't these specs a little pessimistic? <hr></blockquote>

Yea gods! And next week, Apple develops teleportation. Let's be a *tiny* bit realistic.

What's the fastest clockspeed of any desktop processor that IBM produces at the moment? Now you expect IBM to top that with a completely *new* processor produced on half a shoestring (which is *good* - it means its a lot less likely to be cancelled).

Expect what IBM has always produced. Solid, not flashy, incremental improvements. Going to the .09 will probably take about a year. I believe that's about what it took Intel, who probably spent 10 times what IBM is spending on it.

If we can get a 2.5 GHz 970 by March 2005, I'll be a happy camper. After all, I'd say if Intel is only getting twice the performance for probably 20 times the investment, its AIM that's the winner, not Intel.
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
Tom West - Resident Realist
Reply
post #471 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Stoo:
<strong>A 970 upgrade (if possible) would probably be underwhelming, as the 970 usually has 6.4GB/s of usuable bandwidth (3.2GB/s in each direction), but the G4's MPX bus can only supply 166MHz at 64bits wide, or 1.3GB/s total.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The bus has been starving the processors since the dual 1 Ghz, so its no use putting a 970 in one of those machines which is top of the line right now.
"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 #472 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>I can see G4 upgrades working because the G4 supports both MaxBus and the 60x bus, which makes it theoretically compatible with every machine back to the 6100/60. The G3, of course, supports the 60x bus exclusively.

The 970 won't, so upgrade manufacturers will be faced with the unenviable task of bridging from the GigaBus to 60x/MaxBus, in effect coming up with their own companion chips. And the result would be a chronically starved 970 unless the upgrader basically included enough onboard RAM to cache system RAM more locally - if that would even work. The resulting card would not be cheap or available quickly unless something unlikely happened and a third party (or IBM) offered GigaBus-to-60x/MaxBus chips, or GigaBus-to-RapidIO and RapidIO-to-60x/MaxBus (so that there would be two companion chips linked serially).

We'll see a similar break when the G3 and G4 move to RapidIO with an onboard memory controller.

It won't be pretty.

[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


In otherwords...

Try putting a NASCAR style engine on a Yugo... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #473 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>
1887 68020
1988 68030</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I thought we'd been stuck with the G4 for a long time... :eek:
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 #474 of 477
Well when intel has gone through almost 3 generations and Apple through one, thats a long time.
post #475 of 477
[quote] Expect what IBM has always produced. Solid, not flashy, incremental improvements. Going to the .09 will probably take about a year. I believe that's about what it took Intel, who probably spent 10 times what IBM is spending on it. <hr></blockquote>

Three things

1) They're called BIG Blue for a reason. They have a market cap that is 20% larger than that of Intel. Additionally, they've got assets of about $84 billion, Intel $43 billion.

2) "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM."

3) You make it sound like IBM just the other day said, "Hey, you know that 0.09 micron process sounds like a good idea, maybe we should look into it."


My point is IBM has been making preparations for 0.09 for a while. They have a huge amount of assets to make the transition. Perhaps most importantly, IBM will make the transition faster, better and cheaper than Intel. Big Blue is well managed, on the war path, and firing on all cylinders. They're kicking butt with Linux, they're nibbling away at Sun, and they're about to shove the Power4 family into Intel where the sun don't shine.

J

Steve Jobs - "We're going to be kicking ass."
post #476 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by The Swan:
<strong>

2) "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM."

</strong><hr></blockquote>


Irony abounds. This was the line that kept the Mac out of the corporate world in the first place. It was the IBM PC that established x86 as "de rigueur" for business. Let's hope Big Blue can do it again with the 970 and its descendants!
"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 #477 of 477
You guys are going to hate me for this, but UBB appears to be flaking out again. I'll start the thread over.

@ UBB.
"...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
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 ?