<strong>On the money. If this 'Pi' is true...then Apple are right back in the game and it gives them lots of flexibility for the highend apps they bought.
Canny Apple-Pie, eh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the one thing in the NMR that doesn't ring true to me. Why would Apple be developing their own "processor interconnect"? Unless this is just their name for an implementation of HT or Rapid/IO.
This is the one thing in the NMR that doesn't ring true to me. Why would Apple be developing their own "processor interconnect"? Unless this is just their name for an implementation of HT or Rapid/IO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could be an implimentation of a brand new processor bus they are designing with IBM for new processors. Like Apple calls Altivec, "Velocity Engine" this may be a more consumer friendly name for an arcane name IBM would most likely give it (for Example the "XS-4PL bus").
This is the one thing in the NMR that doesn't ring true to me. Why would Apple be developing their own "processor interconnect"? Unless this is just their name for an implementation of HT or Rapid/IO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No Flip that. Why WOULDN'T they develope their own Processor Interconnect after being hamstrung by Motorola over MPX.
<strong>Some of the terms in this rumor just came together in my head, and made some music:
GigaProcessor UltraLite, suggests that individually, these processors will be quite capable, but not mindblowing.
Apple Processor Interconnect sounds like tomething specifically designed for multiprocessor configurations.
This suggests that these processors may be designed specifically to work really well in multiprocessing, possibly in 4-, 8-, or even higher numbers.
This seems to make sense for Apple for 2 reasons:
1. Most heavy duty tasks that people complain about in the creative professional arena (audio, 3d, photoshop) are very well suited to the application of multiple processors.
2. Apple got stuck once before in clockspeed. This would give them a measure of independence from pure clockspeed in upgrading their machines. Instead they can just increase the number of CPUs.
Does this make any sense?
terkans</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, makes sense to me. Perhaps this indicates that the GP-UL marks a kind of intermediate stage between the standard POWER architecture and Cell....
Moki was ahead of the game on that one. GP-UL is not a common term and it returns almost nothing on Google worthwhile.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but with the exception of the expansion of GP-UL to 'GigaProcessor UltraLite', anyone reading this board could have written that NMR report. Now, if Moki could confirm what GP-UL means (GigaProcessor UltraLite is, well, an odd name, IMO) that would help.
It's not that I don't believe Moki, I'm just not sure that this is a confirmation of anything.
GigaProcessor-UltraLight...ummm sounds good to me!
I like the idea of having all high end machines have 4 processors. That way all the machines can have a similar CPU speed but the higher end ones can just have more of them. Think about this line up:
iMac G5 dual 1.8Ghz
PowerMac G5 four 2.2Ghz
hehe that would be great ... I'll sell my soul to have one of those!
Well, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but with the exception of the expansion of GP-UL to 'GigaProcessor UltraLite', anyone reading this board could have written that NMR report. Now, if Moki could confirm what GP-UL means (GigaProcessor UltraLite is, well, an odd name, IMO) that would help.
It's not that I don't believe Moki, I'm just not sure that this is a confirmation of anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Duly noted. However it's nice to have info that refutes the rumors running around that Apple has refused this proc.
It's also a strange coincidence that Moki was calling this proc GP-UL over a month ago.
Now if someone can point to anything that may resemble ApplePI and we're on to something here.
I just think it makes too much sense for Apple not to go with this processor. Motorola obviously has lost it's desire to compete outside of the embedded market.
What the IBM guy said might have been right, Apple told them that they didn't want the Power4. They told them they wanted a new processor to use with they're stuff (altivec, Pie, QE, etc)
<strong>It's not that I don't believe Moki, I'm just not sure that this is a confirmation of anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amazing.... even when it's given out on a silver platter people still doubt (kinda understandable I guess) but come on.... I guess this is one reason why most people who do know (some of) what's going on just keep quiet or put out little tidbits like Moki (and others) do.
Even when someone does a total core dump (ala NMR) with info that I'm really kinda shocked that he included (dates and such) people put up the walls and think something isn't right...
Oh and trust me on this on this, TGB does NOT troll messages boards for his reports. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You mean like the MOSR/Register 8500 that was supposed to debut at MWSF this year?
I must say, I'm with johnsonwax on this one. Let's wait until Oct. 15 & the MPF to see just where IBM is going with their new chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
O-H . M-Y . G-O-S-H!
Exactly how long HAVE you been following rumors?
NMR / TGB is NOT of the same ilk as MacOS Rumors OR The Register! Sorry I can't discuss something with someone who is that uninformed... Way too much work.
It's true. The Gay Blade only posts information he knows one hundred percent to be accurate. Of all the years I've been reading his (their?) work, only once has he (they?) been wrong. No fooling, I take his columns as gospel.
GigaProcessor was possibly the internal code name for later work on the Power4. When it was decided to pursue a desktop version of GP, UltraLite was likely just tacked on for it's code name. What I noticed is that at least some past postings of this had a hyphen in it, GP-UL, like the writer knew it was two compound words.
<strong>It's also a strange coincidence that Moki was calling this proc GP-UL over a month ago.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had I submitted an email saying that Apple was receiving samples of a new IBM chip that's referred to as GreenPeace UnderwearLettuce would that be equally as valid confirmation? No. Anyone could have picked up on Moki's GP-UL and made up any reasonable expansion of it and it'd seem credible in hindsight. That's all I'm getting at.
It also doesn't mean that I don't believe it. Honestly, I'm far more inclined to believe moki than any other source that I've heard thus far. Confirmations are good, but they need to bring new information to the table to earn credibilty. Then others need to confirm and add to that, and so on. This doesn't add much other than the acronym expansion.
Anyone can claim to confirm what's already been said.
[quote]<strong>Now if someone can point to anything that may resemble ApplePI and we're on to something here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing that I know of, though ApplePI's been tossed around as a codename for at LEAST 12 months, if not more. Always as a processor interconnect, IIRC, but no details, specs, etc. It could be HT and nothing more.
Personally, I've always thought the ApplePI chatter was totally bogus given that it was never tied to anything specific.
<strong>It's true. The Gay Blade only posts information he knows one hundred percent to be accurate. Of all the years I've been reading his (their?) work, only once has he (they?) been wrong. No fooling, I take his columns as gospel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I agree he's generally pretty dead-on. I've seen a few misses, though, more often on the big stuff than the little (which is as you'd expect).
Given how significant this is to the Mac, we should remain hopeful, but skeptical.
<strong>Given how significant this is to the Mac, we should remain hopeful, but skeptical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not skeptical on this at all. I have a 'source' (please don't flame me) who knows things because of where he works and his close proximity to a certain fruit company, and he told in July about IBM's processor. He also said the release date was closer to MWSF then MWNY 03. He also said expect to hear about it a couple of months before MWSF. I nodded and smiled as I ate my sandwich. About a month later, it's everywhere that IBM is working on a new PPC that Apple could possibly use and details will come during the processor convention in October. Reading that after what he told me caused me to arch an eyebrow and smile.
I trust this source so much, when I read the IBM spokesperson say no such processor was in the works, I knew it was either a blatant lie or the guy didn't know anything. heh
it is my contention that 90% of AI-types that want a G5(with DDR-whatever and RIO/HT/ApplePI) really don't need one and would be incredibly happy with even a dual-867.
Comments
<strong>On the money. If this 'Pi' is true...then Apple are right back in the game and it gives them lots of flexibility for the highend apps they bought.
Canny Apple-Pie, eh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the one thing in the NMR that doesn't ring true to me. Why would Apple be developing their own "processor interconnect"? Unless this is just their name for an implementation of HT or Rapid/IO.
<strong>
This is the one thing in the NMR that doesn't ring true to me. Why would Apple be developing their own "processor interconnect"? Unless this is just their name for an implementation of HT or Rapid/IO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could be an implimentation of a brand new processor bus they are designing with IBM for new processors. Like Apple calls Altivec, "Velocity Engine" this may be a more consumer friendly name for an arcane name IBM would most likely give it (for Example the "XS-4PL bus").
<strong>
This is the one thing in the NMR that doesn't ring true to me. Why would Apple be developing their own "processor interconnect"? Unless this is just their name for an implementation of HT or Rapid/IO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No Flip that. Why WOULDN'T they develope their own Processor Interconnect after being hamstrung by Motorola over MPX.
A new processor interface might be useful for a large parallel processing system running OSX and a development of NeXT's Zilla.
This could lead to, say, 4 GPUL processor systems that could be expanded to, say, 32 GPUL processor systems.
There was a note here about prototypes with multiple complex CPU modules with large on board memory that mounted onto a fairly simple motherboard.
There was also a note here about multiple CPU modules with large external heat sinks mounting onto a central I/O and HD spine.
Few on this board would object to a semi-consumer version of IBM's Deep Blue.
<a href="http://www.apple.com/scitech/research/papers/acg/"; target="_blank">Zilla</a>
[ 09-14-2002: Message edited by: shawk ]</p>
<strong>Some of the terms in this rumor just came together in my head, and made some music:
GigaProcessor UltraLite, suggests that individually, these processors will be quite capable, but not mindblowing.
Apple Processor Interconnect sounds like tomething specifically designed for multiprocessor configurations.
This suggests that these processors may be designed specifically to work really well in multiprocessing, possibly in 4-, 8-, or even higher numbers.
This seems to make sense for Apple for 2 reasons:
1. Most heavy duty tasks that people complain about in the creative professional arena (audio, 3d, photoshop) are very well suited to the application of multiple processors.
2. Apple got stuck once before in clockspeed. This would give them a measure of independence from pure clockspeed in upgrading their machines. Instead they can just increase the number of CPUs.
Does this make any sense?
terkans</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, makes sense to me. Perhaps this indicates that the GP-UL marks a kind of intermediate stage between the standard POWER architecture and Cell....
:cool:
<strong>johnsonwax
Bingo!
Moki was ahead of the game on that one. GP-UL is not a common term and it returns almost nothing on Google worthwhile.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but with the exception of the expansion of GP-UL to 'GigaProcessor UltraLite', anyone reading this board could have written that NMR report. Now, if Moki could confirm what GP-UL means (GigaProcessor UltraLite is, well, an odd name, IMO) that would help.
It's not that I don't believe Moki, I'm just not sure that this is a confirmation of anything.
I like the idea of having all high end machines have 4 processors. That way all the machines can have a similar CPU speed but the higher end ones can just have more of them. Think about this line up:
iMac G5 dual 1.8Ghz
PowerMac G5 four 2.2Ghz
hehe that would be great ... I'll sell my soul to have one of those!
<strong>
Well, I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but with the exception of the expansion of GP-UL to 'GigaProcessor UltraLite', anyone reading this board could have written that NMR report. Now, if Moki could confirm what GP-UL means (GigaProcessor UltraLite is, well, an odd name, IMO) that would help.
It's not that I don't believe Moki, I'm just not sure that this is a confirmation of anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Duly noted. However it's nice to have info that refutes the rumors running around that Apple has refused this proc.
It's also a strange coincidence that Moki was calling this proc GP-UL over a month ago.
Now if someone can point to anything that may resemble ApplePI and we're on to something here.
I just think it makes too much sense for Apple not to go with this processor. Motorola obviously has lost it's desire to compete outside of the embedded market.
<strong>It's not that I don't believe Moki, I'm just not sure that this is a confirmation of anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amazing.... even when it's given out on a silver platter people still doubt (kinda understandable I guess) but come on.... I guess this is one reason why most people who do know (some of) what's going on just keep quiet or put out little tidbits like Moki (and others) do.
Even when someone does a total core dump (ala NMR) with info that I'm really kinda shocked that he included (dates and such) people put up the walls and think something isn't right...
Oh and trust me on this on this, TGB does NOT troll messages boards for his reports. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dave
[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
You mean like the MOSR/Register 8500 that was supposed to debut at MWSF this year?
I must say, I'm with johnsonwax on this one. Let's wait until Oct. 15 & the MPF to see just where IBM is going with their new chip.
<strong>
You mean like the MOSR/Register 8500 that was supposed to debut at MWSF this year?
I must say, I'm with johnsonwax on this one. Let's wait until Oct. 15 & the MPF to see just where IBM is going with their new chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
O-H . M-Y . G-O-S-H!
Exactly how long HAVE you been following rumors?
NMR / TGB is NOT of the same ilk as MacOS Rumors OR The Register! Sorry I can't discuss something with someone who is that uninformed... Way too much work.
Dave
<strong>It's also a strange coincidence that Moki was calling this proc GP-UL over a month ago.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had I submitted an email saying that Apple was receiving samples of a new IBM chip that's referred to as GreenPeace UnderwearLettuce would that be equally as valid confirmation? No. Anyone could have picked up on Moki's GP-UL and made up any reasonable expansion of it and it'd seem credible in hindsight. That's all I'm getting at.
It also doesn't mean that I don't believe it. Honestly, I'm far more inclined to believe moki than any other source that I've heard thus far. Confirmations are good, but they need to bring new information to the table to earn credibilty. Then others need to confirm and add to that, and so on. This doesn't add much other than the acronym expansion.
Anyone can claim to confirm what's already been said.
[quote]<strong>Now if someone can point to anything that may resemble ApplePI and we're on to something here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing that I know of, though ApplePI's been tossed around as a codename for at LEAST 12 months, if not more. Always as a processor interconnect, IIRC, but no details, specs, etc. It could be HT and nothing more.
Personally, I've always thought the ApplePI chatter was totally bogus given that it was never tied to anything specific.
<strong>It's true. The Gay Blade only posts information he knows one hundred percent to be accurate. Of all the years I've been reading his (their?) work, only once has he (they?) been wrong. No fooling, I take his columns as gospel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I agree he's generally pretty dead-on. I've seen a few misses, though, more often on the big stuff than the little (which is as you'd expect).
Given how significant this is to the Mac, we should remain hopeful, but skeptical.
<strong>Given how significant this is to the Mac, we should remain hopeful, but skeptical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not skeptical on this at all. I have a 'source' (please don't flame me) who knows things because of where he works and his close proximity to a certain fruit company, and he told in July about IBM's processor. He also said the release date was closer to MWSF then MWNY 03. He also said expect to hear about it a couple of months before MWSF. I nodded and smiled as I ate my sandwich. About a month later, it's everywhere that IBM is working on a new PPC that Apple could possibly use and details will come during the processor convention in October. Reading that after what he told me caused me to arch an eyebrow and smile.
I trust this source so much, when I read the IBM spokesperson say no such processor was in the works, I knew it was either a blatant lie or the guy didn't know anything. heh
Anyways, it's coming. And it's gonna be big.
<strong>
it is my contention that 90% of AI-types that want a G5(with DDR-whatever and RIO/HT/ApplePI) really don't need one and would be incredibly happy with even a dual-867.
na</strong><hr></blockquote>
Statement of the year!
Yes. You got that right. I'd say closer to 100% though
The more I look at that Cyclop case I think: 'G5'.
Just a feeling.
LEmon Bon BOn