This is fun to read. I have read these same posts by different people for about two years, "Apple knows they are too far behind now ..." Uhm, yeah ...
We will be blown away, we won't be blown away ...
Eh, I normally take the safe approach. The tower case is about 4-5 years old, that is the standard life of a case. So within the year I expect [most likely with the G5 release] it will be revamped. I like the current case but do wish for improvements on it, I can't see Apple moving backwards so I look forward to the next one.
Apple has been moving away from MW as a primary send off point. This makes sense. We have been trained that it is an expo for Apple's newest and best, but we also expect it and that kills the power of surprise. Surprise is important to Apple's marketing.
Also the MWs do not really workout for release dates, for education customers people are looking earlier and earlier, hense April-May updates to iBooks.
My long range hope is that Apple gets the G5 out, AMD has said they will be first to market with a 64bit chip for the mainstream and Apple getting there first, followed by AMD backing the notion that 64bit makes MHz on 32bit chips irrelavent would be a great upset.
<strong>I see where you're going with that. Apple's not stupid; they know that Motorola doesn't give a damn about the PPC; they know that the PPC is a good chip that needs some personal, caring touch.
Doesn't that whole AIM agreement end soon? Like this summer. . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
PowerPC is not "a chip". It is an instruction set architecture, and one which is applicable to lots of different markets.
AIM hasn't really existed for a couple of years now. IBM and Moto are both pursuing PowerPC in their own ways, for their own ends. Apple probably has its futured planned out, although I doubt we'll see a purely Apple designed PowerPC chip (could be wrong, but I think its more likely they'd pay another chip design company to do it for them).
<strong>Apple probably has its futured planned out, although I doubt we'll see a purely Apple designed PowerPC chip (could be wrong, but I think its more likely they'd pay another chip design company to do it for them).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which reminds me of something I wanted to ask for ages;
Would actually four 1ghz transmeta chips running in PowerPC mode make any sense?
the higher end product is called inferno*. that's the one they use for film rez. flame is generally used for television. they also have a system called fire and their plug-ins are called sparks. <hr></blockquote>
Ah yes those machines, my Dad to used them in the studios as he works for McCanns Erikson. Very juicy Hardware those machines are....
To use them in the pro line would mean that apple would be ahead the x86 world for quite sometime. However a scaled down version is needed, would $1000 for a chip be suitable for 'super' macs?
That would be cool. Also does anyone know the speeds of the memory the Inferno uses, HD speed, etc? I'd love to know. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Hmmm. Lets see now. AMD's market cap at the close of Friday's trading: $3.5 Billion (a hair under, actually). Apple's cash reserves: $4 Billion. I know, I know, Apple is not going to buy Advanced Micro Devices, and they will not spend their cash reserves on a single purchase. But I'll bet that his Steveness, in a fit of pique, has said something to the effect, "Why the fsck do we put up with Motorola?!! Let's just buy somebody and make the friggin' chips ourselves!!" </board of directors all look down at their shoes in uncomfortable silence>
The POWER4 has another drawback other than price. Even with a 0.13 process you would still be able to scramble an egg if it was placed in a case like el Capitan.
Which reminds me of something I wanted to ask for ages;
Would actually four 1ghz transmeta chips running in PowerPC mode make any sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really -- Transmeta was aiming at the very low end of the performance scale with low power devices for mobile products. That part of the market is where PowerPC does pretty well.
<strong>Hmmm. Lets see now. AMD's market cap at the close of Friday's trading: $3.5 Billion (a hair under, actually). Apple's cash reserves: $4 Billion. I know, I know, Apple is not going to buy Advanced Micro Devices, and they will not spend their cash reserves on a single purchase. But I'll bet that his Steveness, in a fit of pique, has said something to the effect, "Why the fsck do we put up with Motorola?!! Let's just buy somebody and make the friggin' chips ourselves!!" </board of directors all look down at their shoes in uncomfortable silence></strong><hr></blockquote>
The interest on $4bn is such that allegedly Apple now nearly has $5bn, so it wouldn't be insane to spend $2bn on something like... oooh... the PPC assets at Motorola which are supposed to be up for sale this summer.
Whatever, $5bn cash reserve means Apple isn't going away anytime soon. They can afford to sit this out.
The problem with a scaled down version of the Power4 chip is that Apple has built up a small software empire around Altivec. It would be less than optimal for the G5 to lack altivec, and the last thing Apple would need is some benchmarks showing a dual 1 GHz G4 system beating a 2 GHz G5 at altivec tasks.
Sorry, but no chance for a scaled down Power4. The G5 is going to have to come from Moto because that's where Altivec is. Apple is locked into Altivec for the foreseeable future.
I feel that considering that absolutely nothing is heard from that front there`s definitely something going on - no-brainer because Apple just had to react at the 500Mhz-problems and gab that is there now.
When and what? This is the question that remains and I`m afraid we`ll not hear anything before it`s official release.
I`m mostly looking forward hoever for the motherboard-architecture. Once again I come back to the Amiga platform which I presented so often as a good example of how a smart architecture can outrule other computers with much faster CPU`s.
BUT with that lack of information MWNY will become even more interesting.. Apple had 2 years now to present something. Will it pay off now?
Let`s all hope so. If not, the wait `til MWSF2003 will surely be a loong wait.
<strong>The problem with a scaled down version of the Power4 chip is that Apple has built up a small software empire around Altivec. It would be less than optimal for the G5 to lack altivec, and the last thing Apple would need is some benchmarks showing a dual 1 GHz G4 system beating a 2 GHz G5 at altivec tasks.
Sorry, but no chance for a scaled down Power4. The G5 is going to have to come from Moto because that's where Altivec is. Apple is locked into Altivec for the foreseeable future.
This isn't necessarily true -- Apple was heavily involved in the design of the SIMD instruction set and we don't know what the letter of the Apple/Moto agreement was. Since Apple has their own name for the technology (i.e. Velocity Engine), I suspect that they have enough rights to authorize a compatible implementation by another chip design house. The actual AltiVec implementation in the G4 is no doubt soley Motorola's, but a scaled down POWER4 which includes a VelocityEngine is likely to be possible.
<strong>Once again I come back to the Amiga platform which I presented so often as a good example of how a smart architecture can outrule other computers with much faster CPU`s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see and hear this all the time, but the fact of the matter is that the Amiga's "wonderful" motherboard technology was completely surpassed circa 1994 and hasn't been relevant since. Same holds for their OS. Let it die already.
I wouldn't hold my breath for some magical motherboard technology that hasn't already been discussed in these forums -- in fact it would be better if such a magical technology did not appear because that would Apple out on its own again, being incompatible and unsupportable by the rest of the electronics industry. Powerful solutions (RapidIO, HyperTransport, etc) are being developed by companies that are really good at that sort of thing, Apple just has to jump on them and use their powers of integration to build a compelling end product... that's what they are good at.
I have received several hints from a single, but very good source, that IBM will be responsible for the next gen PPC. At first this sort of scared me, given IBM's issues with the .13 process with the 750Fx (took them a bit to get some good silicon, eh?) but it seems now that IBM is doing well on that process.
As far as SIMD goes, it was made in no uncertain terms, that an Altivec unit was going to be included and was not an issue.
I really can't back this up, without reverting to press releases. But if you do hit the regular techsites you'll see what I mean. Recent press releases are titled as such "POWER4 to find itself in 1U form factor by 2003" and another one where IBM talks about losing the RISC-pure religion and they talk about SIMD-like or SIMD (can't tell from the press release/article) being present on the POWER5.
Anyhoo, I certainly don't expect to see this mythical processor at MWNY (although I would be pleasently surprised) but rather at MWSF...I would expect faster G4's on the Xserve's ASIC or some derivation thereof.
Speaking of the Xserve...people are always saying "wah...the Xserve only got this...the new PowerMacs are going to look spec-wire exactly like the Xserve"....not true....the 1U form factor plays exceedingly well to the G4's strengths as an embedded chip, the G4 has been dying out to be put into a small form factor like the cube since it died...I'm glad Apple went along the Xserve.
This isn't necessarily true -- Apple was heavily involved in the design of the SIMD instruction set and we don't know what the letter of the Apple/Moto agreement was. Since Apple has their own name for the technology (i.e. Velocity Engine), I suspect that they have enough rights to authorize a compatible implementation by another chip design house. The actual AltiVec implementation in the G4 is no doubt soley Motorola's, but a scaled down POWER4 which includes a VelocityEngine is likely to be possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you're right, but I doubt it. If Apple owned Altivec, then why are they still with Motorola? Why wouldn't they have found a better supplier by now?
<strong>I really can't back this up, without reverting to press releases. But if you do hit the regular techsites you'll see what I mean. Recent press releases are titled as such "POWER4 to find itself in 1U form factor by 2003" and another one where IBM talks about losing the RISC-pure religion and they talk about SIMD-like or SIMD (can't tell from the press release/article) being present on the POWER5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great, so IBM makes a scaled down Power4 CPU for Apple. Apple calls it the G5 and uses it in Powermacs beginning next year.
Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3. I don't see why it would be "good" news that IBM is going to make the G5, it seems like bad news to me. A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year.
<strong>Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the G3 might not be a performance leader compared to the G4, but it's certainly well suited for its own market--try to stick a fanless G4 in an iBook... You could fry eggs on that!
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Also, "Power4" is an incredibly stupid name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed, but so is "AltiVec" and "MPC 7455"... One thing Apple's good at is choosing machitechture names...
<strong>Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3. I don't see why it would be "good" news that IBM is going to make the G5, it seems like bad news to me. A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that the 1.3ghz POWER4 blows the doors off of a 2.2ghz Penium IV right now (and is the fastest current processor in existence), I think I could live with a <2ghz scaled down dual core POWER4... if only it would happen...
[quote]Great, so IBM makes a scaled down Power4 CPU for Apple. Apple calls it the G5 and uses it in Powermacs beginning next year.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know what it will be called. Furthermore, I dunno if it will be a derivation from POWER4 or POWER5.
[quote]
Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3. <hr></blockquote>
Let me start by saying that I'm not a Moto basher at all. But IBM just went through a MAJOR architectural revision from the CXe => FX from everything from pipeline depth, to the data paths between the caches.
AND they are on a very advanced process...they have had trouble getting the whole .13 thing to work, but now it seems they are doing just fine....what you SHOULD be concerned with is the absence of a comparable product on the same process tech from Moto...
[quote]
I don't see why it would be "good" news that IBM is going to make the G5, it seems like bad news to me.<hr></blockquote>
Its not a bad news/good news sort of thing. Its just how it is.
[quote]
A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>I hope you're right, but I doubt it. If Apple owned Altivec, then why are they still with Motorola? Why wouldn't they have found a better supplier by now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you read what I wrote?! I said Apple may have the right to authorize another implementation... not that they can use the existing one. Perhaps because these things take time to build the Motorola solution is the best one available at the moment.
POWER4 is a perfectly logical name since the 2nd generation IBM RISC effort that started back in '88 was called the POWER processor, and this is the 4th generation of it. The name PowerPC came from the idea that it would be a PC version of the POWER series of processors. The acronym was just an excuse to give it a name that sounds like it belongs to a fast processor -- "Performance Optimized With Enhanced Risc". I'm serious. Acronym aside, I think its a better name that Opertron, Pentium, Itanium, etc. I suspect, however, that a desktop version of the POWER4 or 5 would be called a PowerPC still.
And as for IBM being "behind"... it is simply for lack of trying. IBM hasn't tried to put a desktop PowerPC out since the 604, instead they've been putting the G3s into the embedded space and POWERs into the workstation & server spaces. Until now, at least, they have left Apple to use Motorola's G4 and haven't bothered competing. They have some of the best design teams and fabs in the industry, and if they wanted to be in this market they could. Consider, for example, that their 170 million transistor POWER4 on a 0.18 micron process runs at 1 GHz. Further, they now have a working 0.13 micron process and are shipping chips based on it. If Motorola actually cared about the desktop market, they might be worried... but I think they've already decided not to compete there. Perhaps the reason for Moto's decision is because IBM is going to.
Comments
We will be blown away, we won't be blown away ...
Eh, I normally take the safe approach. The tower case is about 4-5 years old, that is the standard life of a case. So within the year I expect [most likely with the G5 release] it will be revamped. I like the current case but do wish for improvements on it, I can't see Apple moving backwards so I look forward to the next one.
Apple has been moving away from MW as a primary send off point. This makes sense. We have been trained that it is an expo for Apple's newest and best, but we also expect it and that kills the power of surprise. Surprise is important to Apple's marketing.
Also the MWs do not really workout for release dates, for education customers people are looking earlier and earlier, hense April-May updates to iBooks.
My long range hope is that Apple gets the G5 out, AMD has said they will be first to market with a 64bit chip for the mainstream and Apple getting there first, followed by AMD backing the notion that 64bit makes MHz on 32bit chips irrelavent would be a great upset.
<strong>I see where you're going with that. Apple's not stupid; they know that Motorola doesn't give a damn about the PPC; they know that the PPC is a good chip that needs some personal, caring touch.
Doesn't that whole AIM agreement end soon? Like this summer. . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
PowerPC is not "a chip". It is an instruction set architecture, and one which is applicable to lots of different markets.
AIM hasn't really existed for a couple of years now. IBM and Moto are both pursuing PowerPC in their own ways, for their own ends. Apple probably has its futured planned out, although I doubt we'll see a purely Apple designed PowerPC chip (could be wrong, but I think its more likely they'd pay another chip design company to do it for them).
<strong>Apple probably has its futured planned out, although I doubt we'll see a purely Apple designed PowerPC chip (could be wrong, but I think its more likely they'd pay another chip design company to do it for them).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which reminds me of something I wanted to ask for ages;
Would actually four 1ghz transmeta chips running in PowerPC mode make any sense?
the higher end product is called inferno*. that's the one they use for film rez. flame is generally used for television. they also have a system called fire and their plug-ins are called sparks. <hr></blockquote>
Ah yes those machines, my Dad to used them in the studios as he works for McCanns Erikson. Very juicy Hardware those machines are....
To use them in the pro line would mean that apple would be ahead the x86 world for quite sometime. However a scaled down version is needed, would $1000 for a chip be suitable for 'super' macs?
That would be cool. Also does anyone know the speeds of the memory the Inferno uses, HD speed, etc? I'd love to know. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
err... sorry
The POWER4 has another drawback other than price. Even with a 0.13 process you would still be able to scramble an egg if it was placed in a case like el Capitan.
This baby is HOT!!!
<strong>
Which reminds me of something I wanted to ask for ages;
Would actually four 1ghz transmeta chips running in PowerPC mode make any sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really -- Transmeta was aiming at the very low end of the performance scale with low power devices for mobile products. That part of the market is where PowerPC does pretty well.
<strong>Hmmm. Lets see now. AMD's market cap at the close of Friday's trading: $3.5 Billion (a hair under, actually). Apple's cash reserves: $4 Billion. I know, I know, Apple is not going to buy Advanced Micro Devices, and they will not spend their cash reserves on a single purchase. But I'll bet that his Steveness, in a fit of pique, has said something to the effect, "Why the fsck do we put up with Motorola?!! Let's just buy somebody and make the friggin' chips ourselves!!" </board of directors all look down at their shoes in uncomfortable silence></strong><hr></blockquote>
The interest on $4bn is such that allegedly Apple now nearly has $5bn, so it wouldn't be insane to spend $2bn on something like... oooh... the PPC assets at Motorola which are supposed to be up for sale this summer.
Whatever, $5bn cash reserve means Apple isn't going away anytime soon. They can afford to sit this out.
Sorry, but no chance for a scaled down Power4. The G5 is going to have to come from Moto because that's where Altivec is. Apple is locked into Altivec for the foreseeable future.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
When and what? This is the question that remains and I`m afraid we`ll not hear anything before it`s official release.
I`m mostly looking forward hoever for the motherboard-architecture. Once again I come back to the Amiga platform which I presented so often as a good example of how a smart architecture can outrule other computers with much faster CPU`s.
BUT with that lack of information MWNY will become even more interesting.. Apple had 2 years now to present something. Will it pay off now?
Let`s all hope so. If not, the wait `til MWSF2003 will surely be a loong wait.
<strong>The problem with a scaled down version of the Power4 chip is that Apple has built up a small software empire around Altivec. It would be less than optimal for the G5 to lack altivec, and the last thing Apple would need is some benchmarks showing a dual 1 GHz G4 system beating a 2 GHz G5 at altivec tasks.
Sorry, but no chance for a scaled down Power4. The G5 is going to have to come from Moto because that's where Altivec is. Apple is locked into Altivec for the foreseeable future.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't necessarily true -- Apple was heavily involved in the design of the SIMD instruction set and we don't know what the letter of the Apple/Moto agreement was. Since Apple has their own name for the technology (i.e. Velocity Engine), I suspect that they have enough rights to authorize a compatible implementation by another chip design house. The actual AltiVec implementation in the G4 is no doubt soley Motorola's, but a scaled down POWER4 which includes a VelocityEngine is likely to be possible.
<strong>Once again I come back to the Amiga platform which I presented so often as a good example of how a smart architecture can outrule other computers with much faster CPU`s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see and hear this all the time, but the fact of the matter is that the Amiga's "wonderful" motherboard technology was completely surpassed circa 1994 and hasn't been relevant since. Same holds for their OS. Let it die already.
I wouldn't hold my breath for some magical motherboard technology that hasn't already been discussed in these forums -- in fact it would be better if such a magical technology did not appear because that would Apple out on its own again, being incompatible and unsupportable by the rest of the electronics industry. Powerful solutions (RapidIO, HyperTransport, etc) are being developed by companies that are really good at that sort of thing, Apple just has to jump on them and use their powers of integration to build a compelling end product... that's what they are good at.
I have received several hints from a single, but very good source, that IBM will be responsible for the next gen PPC. At first this sort of scared me, given IBM's issues with the .13 process with the 750Fx (took them a bit to get some good silicon, eh?) but it seems now that IBM is doing well on that process.
As far as SIMD goes, it was made in no uncertain terms, that an Altivec unit was going to be included and was not an issue.
I really can't back this up, without reverting to press releases. But if you do hit the regular techsites you'll see what I mean. Recent press releases are titled as such "POWER4 to find itself in 1U form factor by 2003" and another one where IBM talks about losing the RISC-pure religion and they talk about SIMD-like or SIMD (can't tell from the press release/article) being present on the POWER5.
Anyhoo, I certainly don't expect to see this mythical processor at MWNY (although I would be pleasently surprised) but rather at MWSF...I would expect faster G4's on the Xserve's ASIC or some derivation thereof.
Speaking of the Xserve...people are always saying "wah...the Xserve only got this...the new PowerMacs are going to look spec-wire exactly like the Xserve"....not true....the 1U form factor plays exceedingly well to the G4's strengths as an embedded chip, the G4 has been dying out to be put into a small form factor like the cube since it died...I'm glad Apple went along the Xserve.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: mslee ]</p>
<strong>
This isn't necessarily true -- Apple was heavily involved in the design of the SIMD instruction set and we don't know what the letter of the Apple/Moto agreement was. Since Apple has their own name for the technology (i.e. Velocity Engine), I suspect that they have enough rights to authorize a compatible implementation by another chip design house. The actual AltiVec implementation in the G4 is no doubt soley Motorola's, but a scaled down POWER4 which includes a VelocityEngine is likely to be possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you're right, but I doubt it. If Apple owned Altivec, then why are they still with Motorola? Why wouldn't they have found a better supplier by now?
<strong>I really can't back this up, without reverting to press releases. But if you do hit the regular techsites you'll see what I mean. Recent press releases are titled as such "POWER4 to find itself in 1U form factor by 2003" and another one where IBM talks about losing the RISC-pure religion and they talk about SIMD-like or SIMD (can't tell from the press release/article) being present on the POWER5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great, so IBM makes a scaled down Power4 CPU for Apple. Apple calls it the G5 and uses it in Powermacs beginning next year.
Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3. I don't see why it would be "good" news that IBM is going to make the G5, it seems like bad news to me. A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year.
Also, "Power4" is an incredibly stupid name.
<strong>Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the G3 might not be a performance leader compared to the G4, but it's certainly well suited for its own market--try to stick a fanless G4 in an iBook... You could fry eggs on that!
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Also, "Power4" is an incredibly stupid name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed, but so is "AltiVec" and "MPC 7455"... One thing Apple's good at is choosing machitechture names...
ZoSo
<strong>Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3. I don't see why it would be "good" news that IBM is going to make the G5, it seems like bad news to me. A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that the 1.3ghz POWER4 blows the doors off of a 2.2ghz Penium IV right now (and is the fastest current processor in existence), I think I could live with a <2ghz scaled down dual core POWER4... if only it would happen...
[quote]Great, so IBM makes a scaled down Power4 CPU for Apple. Apple calls it the G5 and uses it in Powermacs beginning next year.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know what it will be called. Furthermore, I dunno if it will be a derivation from POWER4 or POWER5.
[quote]
Remember that IBM is BEHIND Moto with the G3! IBM still hasn't hit 1 GHz on a shipping version of the G3. <hr></blockquote>
Let me start by saying that I'm not a Moto basher at all. But IBM just went through a MAJOR architectural revision from the CXe => FX from everything from pipeline depth, to the data paths between the caches.
AND they are on a very advanced process...they have had trouble getting the whole .13 thing to work, but now it seems they are doing just fine....what you SHOULD be concerned with is the absence of a comparable product on the same process tech from Moto...
[quote]
I don't see why it would be "good" news that IBM is going to make the G5, it seems like bad news to me.<hr></blockquote>
Its not a bad news/good news sort of thing. Its just how it is.
[quote]
A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year. <hr></blockquote>
Now you're just being silly.
<strong>I hope you're right, but I doubt it. If Apple owned Altivec, then why are they still with Motorola? Why wouldn't they have found a better supplier by now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did you read what I wrote?! I said Apple may have the right to authorize another implementation... not that they can use the existing one. Perhaps because these things take time to build the Motorola solution is the best one available at the moment.
POWER4 is a perfectly logical name since the 2nd generation IBM RISC effort that started back in '88 was called the POWER processor, and this is the 4th generation of it. The name PowerPC came from the idea that it would be a PC version of the POWER series of processors. The acronym was just an excuse to give it a name that sounds like it belongs to a fast processor -- "Performance Optimized With Enhanced Risc". I'm serious.
And as for IBM being "behind"... it is simply for lack of trying. IBM hasn't tried to put a desktop PowerPC out since the 604, instead they've been putting the G3s into the embedded space and POWERs into the workstation & server spaces. Until now, at least, they have left Apple to use Motorola's G4 and haven't bothered competing. They have some of the best design teams and fabs in the industry, and if they wanted to be in this market they could. Consider, for example, that their 170 million transistor POWER4 on a 0.18 micron process runs at 1 GHz. Further, they now have a working 0.13 micron process and are shipping chips based on it. If Motorola actually cared about the desktop market, they might be worried... but I think they've already decided not to compete there. Perhaps the reason for Moto's decision is because IBM is going to.
<strong>
A scaled down Power4 would probably clock below 2 GHz, while the Pentium 4 will be at over 3 GHz by next year.
Also, "Power4" is an incredibly stupid name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is it with Mhz or what Intel does. Mhz is only part of the equation for a fast computer. Get over it.