or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › IBM ready to deliver dual-core PowerPC G5 processors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IBM ready to deliver dual-core PowerPC G5 processors? - Page 2

post #41 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
They said All Mac's would be shipping with intel processors in 2007.

For accuracy's sake, does anyone remember for sure whether Steve said in 2007 during the keynote or by 2007?
post #42 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by mjteix
Spring '06: Intel minis and iBooks ( Yonah )
Summer '06: Intel PowerBooks ( DualCore Yonah )

Since its creation hasn't the PowerBook been Apple's flagship mobile product, always preceding the iBook? If that's true I don't see Intel processors in an iBook (and maybe the mini) happening before the PowerBook, especially if that hypothetical Intel iBook_were to outperform the current PPC PowerBook at the time.
post #43 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
For accuracy's sake, does anyone remember for sure whether Steve said in 2007 during the keynote or by 2007?

He said that the hardware transition will be done by end of 2007.

So there will be products with G4s or G5s for another 2 and a half years.
post #44 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
Since its creation hasn't the PowerBook been Apple's flagship mobile product, always preceding the iBook? If that's true I don't see Intel processors in an iBook (and maybe the mini) happening before the PowerBook, especially if that hypothetical Intel iBook_were to outperform the current PPC PowerBook at the time.

Yes, I questioned that as well. I could see the Mini (and maybe the eMac, if it still exists) getting something first. But it would be for power and cost. Also if Apple is useing the Mini as an entertainment hub, it would need enough power to decode H.264. The iBooks wouldn't need that right away. Which is why the report that the Mini might get the low power G5.

It's always possible that the iBooks and the PB's will get them at ABOUT the same time. Different processors though.
post #45 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
Since its creation hasn't the PowerBook been Apple's flagship mobile product, always preceding the iBook? If that's true I don't see Intel processors in an iBook (and maybe the mini) happening before the PowerBook, especially if that hypothetical Intel iBook_were to outperform the current PPC PowerBook at the time.

Yes, it could be the other way around or at the same time. If PowerBooks are updated in sept/oct with a 7448 @ 1.8GHz or more, they could stand siding with Intel iBooks @ 1.67Ghz for awhile. Apple could wait for the public reaction on Intel minis and iBooks before shipping the Intel PowerBooks...
As far as I know Single Core Yonahs will be available @ 1.67GHz max while Dual Cores will go up to 2.16GHz.
post #46 of 97
To add to my last post; I forgot to mention that one site did tests on H.264 decoding, and they found that Intel's current chips don't work nearly as well as the G4's and G5's in that application.

However, MS's WM Hi Def compression worked much better in that it needed a lot less horsepower. Some food for thought.
post #47 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
To add to my last post; I forgot to mention that one site did tests on H.264 decoding, and they found that Intel's current chips don't work nearly as well as the G4's and G5's in that application.

However, MS's WM Hi Def compression worked much better in that it needed a lot less horsepower. Some food for thought.


hi peoples,

i've mentioned it quite a few times, thought i'd interject here again. h.264 decoding can be offloaded to a large large amount to the GPU.

nvidia claims and it does appear that some nvidia gpus decode wmv offloading a lot of work that would otherwise bog down the cpu..

i can tell you wmv hd is smooth as butter decoding on my 1.8-2.2ghz clocked AMD with nvidia 6600gt.

ati HAS promised h.264 decoding

sure, i agree a G5 would be excellent if cool (all puns intended) in a mac mini format. teh snappytasticness of tiger on a g5 low-watt 1.6ghz with 512mb would be excellence. but apple would definitely prefer h.264 offloaded to gpu's even if it is 'just' a ati9550-or ati-9600-class gpu . sorenson3 in quicktime is sorted. h.264 decoding is where they are placing their quicktime7 bets, so hopefully aTi and nVidia can come to the table fast enough so that a g4/ g5 or pentiumM/derivative can do other great stuff...
post #48 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
hi peoples,

i've mentioned it quite a few times, thought i'd interject here again. h.264 decoding can be offloaded to a large large amount to the GPU.

nvidia claims and it does appear that some nvidia gpus decode wmv offloading a lot of work that would otherwise bog down the cpu..

i can tell you wmv hd is smooth as butter decoding on my 1.8-2.2ghz clocked AMD with nvidia 6600gt.

ati HAS promised h.264 decoding

sure, i agree a G5 would be excellent if cool (all puns intended) in a mac mini format. teh snappytasticness of tiger on a g5 low-watt 1.6ghz with 512mb would be excellence. but apple would definitely prefer h.264 offloaded to gpu's even if it is 'just' a ati9550-or ati-9600-class gpu . sorenson3 in quicktime is sorted. h.264 decoding is where they are placing their quicktime7 bets, so hopefully aTi and nVidia can come to the table fast enough so that a g4/ g5 or pentiumM/derivative can do other great stuff...

The problems are cost, size, and cooling.

A GPU that can do this is currently almost as expensive as the Mini itself. It would also require a turbo cooler for the GPU alone which would mean that it will NEVER fit into a Mini as currently configured, and thereby would require an entirely different machine. Thr low power G5 would do 720p without a problem, which is pretty much standard. It would also do 1080i, which is the alternate standard. I don't know if the 1.6 would be able to do 1080p. I haven't done the math yet.

My dual 1.8 7447a does 720p perfectly, but drops frames on 1080p. We could go by that as a base to figure the numbers. This is using a 9800 Pro.
post #49 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The problems are cost, size, and cooling......The low power G5 would do 720p without a problem, which is pretty much standard. It would also do 1080i, which is the alternate standard. I don't know if the 1.6 would be able to do 1080p.......

cool. 720p should be sorted on any g5. 1080p though i think not on a low power single-g5.
post #50 of 97
When the Mini came out there was a lot of hype floating around about how it was Apple's answer to the Media PC's. Sites such as ARs and Anand were talking it up. When it was found to not have the oomph to be used for that, as well as no HDMI connector, everyone was disappointed, to say the least.

If Apple could rectify this in the $699 model, with multi-channel out, then the sales would go up significantly.

Even if they had to "raise the roof" so to speak, to accommodate more cooling, it would be worth it. I would have bought one just for the hell of it, but the current one is too limited.

As a media center, it would be great; if Apple made it so, and included software to enable those functions.
post #51 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
.......As a media center, it would be great; if Apple made it so, and included software to enable those functions.

well, that's what a lot of us are waiting for like the salivating dogs that we are....
post #52 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
well, that's what a lot of us are waiting for like the salivating dogs that we are....

Sure; and this has implications well beyond Apple's gooey base.
post #53 of 97
And as we're talking about it, I just saw this on xlt8yourmac.com.

http://centerstageproject.com/
post #54 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by nowayout11
He said that the hardware transition will be done by end of 2007.

Thanks for the clarification. That implies the transition schedule is wide open between now and then so even the most far-fetched speculations of when the first Intel-based products will ship are possible.

Re: Intel iBook or PowerBook first. Obviously that's anyone's guess, and maybe there'll be some unexpected changes in Apple's mobile product line thrown in to better differentiate them from non-Apple offerings. More generally, and especially if OS X on Intel is "too easily" hackable for non-Apple hardware (and remains unlicensed to other vendors), it's easy to anticipate we'll see something that sweetens the deal in Apple's favor. Sure, "it's the software" but running it on an Apple box that's too much like other commodity PCs isn't something we'd expect from Steve Jobs.

Of course it's unclear if what's made and makes Apple computer systems appealing for its customers is sustainable (and eventually growable) in the same ways it's been and is now, e.g. with the current popular mainstream view being "that iPod company". But enough with that old and tired topic, except to say there's certainly curiosity about what their next "think different" strategy might be in light of the Intel transition.
post #55 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
And as we're talking about it, I just saw this on xlt8yourmac.com.

http://centerstageproject.com/


i tried the alpha one month ago. has some potential, hopefully it comes along alright. integration with elgato, what their focusing on, is a step in a great direction right now.

my brother loves his mac mini + elgato thingy hooked up to the TV. it's UK digital terrestial (dvd-quality) so no high def yet but the mac mini rocks with mpeg2 approx. 480p digital tv.

back to my GPU obsession but it's taken 5 years and virtually all video cards even on the low end have built-in mpeg2 decoding, of course. h.264 has only really been out for 1 year
post #56 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
i tried the alpha one month ago. has some potential, hopefully it comes along alright. integration with elgato, what their focusing on, is a step in a great direction right now.

my brother loves his mac mini + elgato thingy hooked up to the TV. it's UK digital terrestial (dvd-quality) so no high def yet but the mac mini rocks with mpeg2 approx. 480p digital tv.

back to my GPU obsession but it's taken 5 years and virtually all video cards even on the low end have built-in mpeg2 decoding, of course. h.264 has only really been out for 1 year

Yup, two years from now todays high end cards will be low end cards. The 6800 and 850's are now medium range cards.
post #57 of 97
I was looking for this article and finally found it. I'm putting it up on another thread as well.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25057
post #58 of 97
Thanks for posting that link. Now I'll go look for the other thread ...
post #59 of 97
We don't know prices of future chips and GPUs yet, but does anyone care to guess how a Cell processor might compete for this role in future Apple PCs? I understand that digital HDTV is one thing the Cell is designed to do very well. It could be cheaper than a GPU for this job. It might also serve as a VMX coprocessor and be the key that stops OS X from running on a generic PC.
post #60 of 97
The other day I read an article (might take a bit to search for it now) by someone who thinks people are underestimating the complexity for multiprocessor Cell game programming. But as a specialized coprocessor, as you've suggested, might be an easier and more immediate way to tap Cell's potential.
post #61 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
We don't know prices of future chips and GPUs yet, but does anyone care to guess how a Cell processor might compete for this role in future Apple PCs? I understand that digital HDTV is one thing the Cell is designed to do very well. It could be cheaper than a GPU for this job. It might also serve as a VMX coprocessor and be the key that stops OS X from running on a generic PC.

This is one of the things that the Cell does well. Toshiba had a demonstration when the cell was first shown of a couple of dozen video feeds being processed through the cell at the same time.

As a co-processor it would work well. It might be easier if Apple were still using the PPC as the main cpu than the x86 simply because the instruction sets would have more points of convergence. But that might not matter. The question is whether Apple would want to do so.

I had rhought that Apple using the Cell for most all rendering tasks, including that of screen rendering would have made up for the differences between it and x86 machines, but that seems to be less and less a posibility at this point.
post #62 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by snoopy
We don't know prices of future chips and GPUs yet, but does anyone care to guess how a Cell processor might compete for this role in future Apple PCs? I understand that digital HDTV is one thing the Cell is designed to do very well. It could be cheaper than a GPU for this job. It might also serve as a VMX coprocessor and be the key that stops OS X from running on a generic PC.

yeah we were talking about this a lot a few months ago, and reflecting back on it, since you raised the point, as melgross mentioned, yeah, it looks more and more unlikely that apple will bring in cell into the picture. i think they want to move to pure-intel cpu and chipsets as much as possible to get the economies of scale, volume, reliable supply, and to meet their mac sales targets. cell is an interesting possibility. a few years ago, apple would have strongly considered it. after being burned by moto and ibm though, and looking at their consumer focus, i think they're like, well, not worth the risk anymore

edit: remember that cell is relatively new, and apple has been compiling mac os x for x86 for 5 years. there's actually MORE R&D required now to incorporate cell than go pure x86. also, going up against GPUs, a ati/nvidia GPU is a almost 100% certainty in the new Macintels, possible intel integrated graphics (a few people are screaming NOOOO!!) again, for the initial macintels, apple would roll with this rather than push hard to incorporate cell. maybe once full-scale production has ramped up and its been proven in PS3 units.
post #63 of 97
Hmm. It looks like Intel is ready to pick up the ball after getting spanked by AMD for a while.

Sounds like they're ready to release something big. With Merom and Conroe (and the 'Big') it seems Apple is well placed to take advantages of cool running but powerful cpus.

The fact that they aren't made by Sony or IBM is tough luck on them.

I think Intel are the perfect partner for Apple's Growth.

They have the manufacturing ability to deliver. To back up their press releases.

If we do have dual core G5s. Nice. But it seems late to me. IBM, THE multicore manufacturer couldn't beat x86 to it.

Meanwhile, Intel is already speeding to .65 early 2006. And IBM only just on a dual core g5 on 0.9. At this rate of going, IBM will be 12 months or more (with Apple shipping product...) behind Intel.

Cell is nice. But by the time Intel ships merom and conroe it will be less impressive...coupled with an ATI 520 (shipping some time this year...) Go to quad core chips and Intel are pressing home their advantage and there will be gpus after the 520. In five years, when PS3 is approaching middle age...it will be cool but less impressive than it is now. Hi-Def acceleration will appear on gpus well before then...and software threading will improve for dual and quad chips.

Apple have clearly seen something we haven't. And Cell is unproven. Intel provide chips to most of the 95% Windows market. It's amazing Apple didn't go with Intel years ago.

As a chip in a console with a powerful nvidia gpu, the PS3 will make a stunning console. But until Sony releases a workstation with an os, supporting development software etc...we only have to take Steve Jobs word that the 'Cell' is 'disappointing' (apparently.)

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 #64 of 97
nice positive reassuring outlook. i thought the world was going to end when i heard the intel announcement, and a lot of people on appleInsider chatroom at the time were totally like WTF? no dual core g5 or powerbook g5 instead we get this f***** s***** ????!!!!

but with the veil of microsoft lifted and proven several years of R&D into mac os X on Intel, things are looking promising. pentium Ms with 1mb of L2 cache, 400/533mhz FSB, hitting 2ghz without too much of a sweat, and that's *shipping* stuff, steve has taken a good hit of the pipe(line) and has seen the future. good on him.

given the mac's core target is consumer PCs then possibly into home entertainment or business client workstations, a dedicated GPU of low-to-mid-end is 'more than enough' as you mention. 1 year down the line, as powerful GPUs go mainstream in macintels for coreimage and h.264 acceleration is in place, more goodstuff to come.

personally i've never used AMD before but now that i'm no longer an AMD virgin i'm glad that it's a nice mistress for apple to cheat on Intel with should Intel start to become a naggy b*tch.



<total sidetrack>
cyberMonkey here's the bloody poem

how do i love my nvidia 6600GT
let me count many a way
where once i just could stand by and see
now i can enter the fray

"overclock this, and fps that!
peecees rule, your macs suck!"
and so there i cried and sat
wondering, am i sorely out of luck?

but now out of my system it's gone
i'll chomp on 3dmark, nibble on OS eX
for this debate in my mind it is done
i'll play both sides, just like when i have ...

</ >
post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
edit: remember that cell is relatively new, and apple has been compiling mac os x for x86 for 5 years. there's actually MORE R&D required now to incorporate cell than go pure x86. also, going up against GPUs, a ati/nvidia GPU is a almost 100% certainty in the new Macintels, possible intel integrated graphics (a few people are screaming NOOOO!!) again, for the initial macintels, apple would roll with this rather than push hard to incorporate cell. maybe once full-scale production has ramped up and its been proven in PS3 units.

Also, for the developers to go Cell it would probably be a nightmare compared to Intel. As I understand it Cell is a highly specialized, parallel chips and to optamize for it would probably take a lot of R & D on the developers end, especially for programs which access the hardware directly.
post #66 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by JCG
Also, for the developers to go Cell it would probably be a nightmare compared to Intel. As I understand it Cell is a highly specialized, parallel chips and to optamize for it would probably take a lot of R & D on the developers end, especially for programs which access the hardware directly.


But Cell could make a nice coprocessor, to support things like digital HDTV and Apple core services. Those who write code for applications would never have to deal with the Cell processor itself.
post #67 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by JCG
Also, for the developers to go Cell it would probably be a nightmare compared to Intel. As I understand it Cell is a highly specialized, parallel chips and to optamize for it would probably take a lot of R & D on the developers end, especially for programs which access the hardware directly.

\ yeah it took quite a bit for stevie J to get everyone to cocoa when mac os X came out, and then now moving everyone to xcode 2.1+ to do universal binaries.

at first we thought it was pure RDF that "the ppc->intel transition is going to be easier than macos9->macosX" but the effort apple has put into xcode 2+ and mac os 10.etc... along with people getting universal binaries up and running fairly quicksmart.... actually gives quite a bit of credibility to steve's wwdc'05 keynote.

and hackers getting it up and running on generic beige boxes linux distro-style looks like OMFG they may actually pull this off, albeit without all the so-bleeding-edge-it-just- really-hurts-and-is-still-not-in-production superfly dual-core G5s and Cell daughtercards and what not.

how weird. 2006. if you went back just 10 years in time to 1996 and said to people, "apple will make the most famous portable music player, will have a very decent Mac operating system based on Unix, and it will run on Intel x86's" .... heh.... truth IS stranger than *any* fiction

peace and goodnight y'all.
post #68 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by JCG
Also, for the developers to go Cell it would probably be a nightmare compared to Intel. As I understand it Cell is a highly specialized, parallel chips and to optamize for it would probably take a lot of R & D on the developers end, especially for programs which access the hardware directly.

Some people were stating (in one particularly nasty post to me when fortunately I had gone away for awhile) that the Cell was oh oh oh so easy. Well, it's not, and now most people realize it. Even the Game console programmers aren't able to figure out how to use more than one or two SPE's yet. And Linux is up and running on it, but without any SPE's as yet.

No, Apple made the right choice. No one even knows how long the Cell will be around.
post #69 of 97
Quote:
But Cell could make a nice coprocessor,

Couldashouldawoulda.

It's not going to happen. It's hypothetical.

What isn't..? I was playing on a Pentium 'M' on a Sony Vaio. The speed gave Powerbook teh 'snappy' rash. And the screen on the Sony made the Powerbook look as dull as ditch water. Plus the 17 inch Vaio cost four hundred quid less (that's about $800 dollars to you guys...) and had a 256 megs ATI card and 512 megs of ram.

And. It's available now.

That's why Apple are breaking their necks to get into Intel's bed. It's called bed hoppin'. When ya aint getting any at 'home'...

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 #70 of 97
Quote:
No, Apple made the right choice.

They have to stay in business. And the growth of Apple's laptops in the absence of a G5 tells it's own story.

And faced with the portable juggernaut (ironic, I know...) that Intel is now becoming Apple had little business choice. And it's plain to all to see apart from one or two Mac Zealots that would take a bullet for a G4 processor. (Which reaks of blue and green mold...)

Intel are realising the promise of what PPC should have been.

PPC. For Apple? It's over.

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 #71 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No, Apple made the right choice. No one even knows how long the Cell will be around.

Welcome to the future: Cell or Cell-like.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #72 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Welcome to the future: Cell or Cell-like.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. The 360's Xenon is just as likely a model.
post #73 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Welcome to the future: Cell or Cell-like.


Are we missing a link? I did see an Intel web page that showed many-core & massively parallel processors coming in about 2008. Is this what you are referring to?
post #74 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Welcome to the future: Cell or Cell-like.


Are we missing a link? I did see an Intel web page that showed many-core & massively parallel processors coming in about 2008. Is this what you are referring to?

Edit: Please ignore or delete this duplicate. I must have hit the send button twice.
post #75 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Welcome to the future: Cell or Cell-like.

From Intel's website:

Quote:
and platform architecture needs to move toward a virtualized, reconfigurable chip-level multiprocessing (CMP) architecture with a large number of cores, a rich set of built-in processing capabilities, large on-chip memory subsystem and sophisticated microkernel.

And the address for the above quote:

Platform 2015

Is this what you were thinking of Programmer...?

Because it looks pretty Cell-like to me...
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #76 of 97
Intel are going 'Cell' like.

The Appleinsider converage seems to indicate that.

Cores on a cpu that can handle lots of different jobs.

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 #77 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Intel are going 'Cell' like.

The Appleinsider converage seems to indicate that.

Cores on a cpu that can handle lots of different jobs.

Lemon Bon Bon

that's not quite what the Cell is about.

The Cell has one processor that is more powerful and general purpose. It controls the other processors, and can do processing on its own. The other processors are all the same and are fairly simple general purpose units that are optimized to do operations like signal processing, rendering conversion etc. The memory subsystem is also different. It's called a "ring. Each processor gets its own local memory.

This isn't precisely what it is, but is a general description. If you want something much more technical, go to "arstechinca.com".

This is very different from multi-core chips like the Zenon for the 360 which uses three of the main Cell processor cores.

In any multi-core chip, each core can do a different task. Just as in a dual cpu machine now.
post #78 of 97
I would love to see a 20" Dual Core HD iMac. This is the year of HD is it not?

Sir Mac
post #79 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The Cell has one processor that is more powerful and general purpose.

You might be surprised at the relative power of the PU vs. an SPU.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #80 of 97
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
You might be surprised at the relative power of the PU vs. an SPU.

Well, we know that the PU is based on the G4, and the SPU on the 601.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › IBM ready to deliver dual-core PowerPC G5 processors?