Didn't move the production of some newer (we presume 167FSB G4's) to another facility?
Would that free up another facility for something else?
It may not have anything to do with anything that Apple can use, but WTH is going on with PPC production at Mot???
Will they ever use a .13u process on the G4?
Other people said (and again this could be pure conjecture) that after a long while Mot finally cleaned up their fab. Does any of this portend of Hip7 G4's ???
While the IBM news probably points to a new high-end chip for mac, I presume that we'll be living with G4's for some time to yet in the lesser macs.
At the very least Mot should want to do this for it's embedded customers!
Then again adding a SIMD unit to IBM's Sahara could make that chip the perfect low power G4 replacement.
How would a Sahara + VMX compare to a G4? Especially if the FSB is upped once the mythical super-chip arrives. (Assuming that the VMX unit performs the same as the Altivec one in the G4+).
If Apple can design such a board, what stops them from running the MPX bus at 200 or 266MHz in SDR mode? They would have to carefully design the motherboard and especially the daughter card. For one thing they would have to bring the memory controller on the card and get it as close to the processor(s) as possible. Perhaps even right under the processor (on the other side of the PCB). The problems I see doing it another way is that a 266MHz signal may not pass through the daughter board connector well enough. This would last us until we have the IBM chip probably in late 2003.
If Apple can design such a board, what stops them from running the MPX bus at 200 or 266MHz in SDR mode? They would have to carefully design the motherboard and especially the daughter card. For one thing they would have to bring the memory controller on the card and get it as close to the processor(s) as possible. Perhaps even right under the processor (on the other side of the PCB). The problems I see doing it another way is that a 266MHz signal may not pass through the daughter board connector well enough. This would last us until we have the IBM chip probably in late 2003.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aside from technical difficulties, there is the problem of cash to throw at such a project. Also, Apple probably wnats to move to something other than mpx, not to further entrench themsleves with the mpx bus standard. It would be like getting a new coat of paint for a 1990 Hyundai excel.
I'd imagine that there are serious technical difficulties in pushing MPX up to 200+ MHz, not to mention Motorola doesn't want to because their embedded customers aren't interested. And if Moto doesn't want to, Apple can't do it.
A Sahara+VMX would probably be in the same performance ballpark as the G4, except for double precision floating point (it doesn't have the G4's more advanced unit) and in bus performance (MPX is more efficient even though it only goes up to 166, compared to the Sahara's 200). I think the Sahara has fewer execution units and other internal resources, so it would probably be slightly slower than the 7455, although its pipelines are shorter. I also wouldn't count on its VMX unit being quite as fast -- they'd probably go for a low-power implementation (although with some of the stuff I've read about the work at IBM you never know). I'd expect to see Apple use it at lower clock rates in their iBook line due to its better power efficiency.
Me too! I don't know which OS X other people are using but mine is lightyears away from Win2k in terms of stability.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Check your RAM. Seriously. Gauge Pro is an OS9 only tool that does a *very* comprehensive testing of your RAM... which is how I found out that a module was bad in my Pismo, after Apple's tools (even their professional diagnostics) failed to find the problem.
I went from an *amazingly* flaky system to one that's rock solid. If that machine had been my only one, I'm sure I'd have a very different idea of MacOS X, but since my B/W G3 was a *rock*, I knew it had to be the machine, somehow.
what i do not get is the following. apple designs a complete new mobo where they offload the cpu's. the cpu's are essentially the same ones as before, except for 166 bus, but suddenly require a massive heatsink with ditto fan. could this be because of the 25% overclocking?
can the mobo be used for a new cpu? so why bother with the advanced system controller when new cpu's could have a on chip controller or is that not the same. it seems that apple went into a lot of trouble for a seemingly moderate speedbump or did is mobo prepared for a significant future upgrade of the cpu's
<strong>what i do not get is the following. apple designs a complete new mobo where they offload the cpu's. the cpu's are essentially the same ones as before, except for 166 bus, but suddenly require a massive heatsink with ditto fan. could this be because of the 25% overclocking?
can the mobo be used for a new cpu? so why bother with the advanced system controller when new cpu's could have a on chip controller or is that not the same. it seems that apple went into a lot of trouble for a seemingly moderate speedbump or did is mobo prepared for a significant future upgrade of the cpu's</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps this controller has features that we don't know about. After all it's not the controller that's hosing us it's the MPX controller between the procs and RAM.
What if this new controller had hidden features that have yet to be enabled. Maybe a pdf with some juicy info will arise someday.
First of all Apple knows it is behind the 8-Ball. They do not think that the Mac faithful will always be there, because at one time Macintosh held about 8% to 9% of the market and now it is around 4.5%. Their switch campaign is designed around the fact that they must increase market share or else. Every Mac user knows that Apple is using older technology in their computers. What does Apples future hold?
Motorola: What can we say about the abysmal company. It seem that the development of the G5 may have been stopped a year or so ago when Motorola made major cuts to their semiconductor group. I also find it quite possible that Apple has funded the improvements to the current G4. Where are the 1.4 or 1.6 GHz chips we have heard so much about? Do they exist? They exist as Apples insurance to have one final speed bump out of G4 design. If Apples new processor is not ready in time you will see these processors, if the new processors do make it out in time these chips will only be used in the consumer models.
Intel & AMD: The speed of there chips increase and their cost keeps going down. At first it seems like a good idea using these chips in your new computers. Apple would have a problem with this. The first of their problems would be the margins; most people would expect the cost of apple hardware to be in line with comparable hardware (same processors, video, memory, etc… from Dell, HP, and Gateway. Dell may be able to survive on single digit margins because of their percentage of the market and their direct sales only, but Apple would die. Another problem may come from people who may develop a way to hack the Mac OS to run on any current hardware being sold. This could result in a huge lost in hardware sales and lets face it, Apple does not want to be just a software company (Microsoft wants to more than a software company…OK OK MICROSOFT WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD).
IBM: Is developing a new desktop Power4 Chip and we all are waiting to hear what is going to be said at the Microprocessor Forum in October where IBM will disclose the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s.
Apple: Is a company that is still delivering great designs as well as outstanding consumer applications. What is holding back Apple is the Hardware. If Apple was shipping 2+GHz on 400 or 533 MHz Motherboards the Apple Faithful would be grinning from ear to ear (yes you would still have those who would find something to complain about). But what is Apple doing?
-The new motherboard controller chip was certainly planed and built because Apple is well aware of the Motorola chip problems. This is clearly a stop gap measure until a whole new line of pro level computers are delivered (although it will be used in the consumer line until they get step up sometime after the new line has seen a revision or two).
-Apple is buy graphic and audio companies and killing of the window versions.
-Apple has 4 billion in cash on hand and I bet they have a few companies to buy.
What does this mean Apple is getting all its duck in a row… switch campaign to have people look at the Macintosh (iPod for windows helps here), Let IBM start the buzz about their a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor, all this while Apple is designing new motherboards and working with graphic companies to improve the video on their systems so sometime next year apple will come out with a that the industry will have to stop and take notice….the switch may then be on.
<strong>what i do not get is the following. apple designs a complete new mobo where they offload the cpu's. the cpu's are essentially the same ones as before, except for 166 bus, but suddenly require a massive heatsink with ditto fan. could this be because of the 25% overclocking?
can the mobo be used for a new cpu? so why bother with the advanced system controller when new cpu's could have a on chip controller or is that not the same. it seems that apple went into a lot of trouble for a seemingly moderate speedbump or did is mobo prepared for a significant future upgrade of the cpu's</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two facts. First the FSB is not overclocked. It has just had its clock speed improved. There is no difference between now and when the original G4 went from a 100 MHz bus to a 133MHz bus or the PIV increased its FSB speed. Only in the case of the original G4 switch they released a new chip at the same time to make it possible to scale.
This motherboard will serve at least one more upgrade and possibly 2. Really it will have a life of around a year that's plenty of reason to design it.
<strong>The very thought that the 1.25GHz 7455 are overclocked is depressing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, that's why it takes 6-8 weeks to get a new 1.25 GHz system!
Apple has a big room full of 1 GHz systems that they've cranked up to 1.25 GHz. Those that survive the next six weeks without crashing or burning up will be sold as 1.25 GHz systems.
This was yet another silent update of the PMs. This was yet another small update of the PMs. This was a emergency releace with patchwork solutions like the system controller. There hasnt been a keynote PM release for quite a long time.
Conclusions:
1. Apple doesnt care for the Powermacs or the pro users. (Well shoot me! )
2. The G4 has reached its peak performance, this is as far as it goes. Apple has squeezed all thats possible out of G4 based computers.
Questions:
1. How big will the next keynote release of the Powermacs be opposed to the silent uppdates?
2. How soon will the next keynote release be?
3. What kind of update would justify being in the next Powermac keynote release?
I disagree, Apple will drop OS 9 booting as soon as they think that they can, that way they dont have to wast development time and money to make it work. Doing so will also increase the install base of OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the system startup disk in X, 9 will no longer be an option.
<strong>Holy crap PSCATES, great post! You really really hit the nail on the head...
As far as MWSF, there is no way in H that there will be a brand new Powermac...not this soon after a big revision...
And as far as the post about this being the groundwork for the next proc. (ie "yikesv.2), I would say "I hope not". DDR is where the industry is today, they didn't prepare for the future, they just caught up to the present. DDRII is right around the corner as is serialATA and Hypertransport. Why does apple still include UltraATA66 for gods sake, are they really saving that much by not making both controllers ATA100, or even RAID built in considering the market for this thing. Anyhoo, The next chip will hopefully be on an all new platform w/ some future (soon to be current) tech.
Oh yeah, I'm also very happy with the current releases!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What revision? This was an update. The cycle is every 6-7 months so MWSF is acceptable. I think it comes down to how high the G4 will scale. We're only getting 166-250mhz increases so that means around 1.5ghz in January. If Mot can't deliver or IBM is ready, why not MWSF?
Motorola is not an "abysmal" company. It really gets tiresome hearing this refrain and its' ilk over and over. Yes, Motorola is having some hard economic times, who isn't in the computer industry.
If you have used anything today that has electronic circuits, you probably have depended on some Motorola chip of some kind.
Just because Motorola isn't all gung-ho about developing a desktop cpu for Apple doesn't make them instantly stupid. Get over it, Apple chose Motorola/IBM not the other way around.
They only thing I am frustrated w/ Motorola is they just absolutely seem against taking the financial chance developing a high end desktop cpu and that Apple, with this cpu, could significantly increase market share, therefore, justifying the huge investment in R&D.
But it is easy using other people's money, in this case Motorola's. and their stockholders.
But to keep slamming Motorola is pointless and wrong, flat wrong.
Plenty of finger pointing. Apple went with Moto'...IBM lost incentive...where to start. Jobs killed the clones...the clones were pinching share from the mothership not expanding the market etc.
Sigh.
It looks like the 'G5' we want won't be coming from Moto'. Killed, cancelled by Moto' and/or Apple.
The closest evidence we have to a 'G5' is IBM's forth coming announcement at the Microprocessor Forum.
When these types of annoucements came from Moto'...the processor followed about a year later. From IBM? A cpu company not losing Billions?
Next Summer with 'fall' shipping at the outside.
Surprise? Macworld San Fran'. The current 'G4' consumer chip (sorry, slip of the tongue...) seems so botched up in hack serve style cases that I'm hoping for a January reprieve to these dual cheese grating disasters.
How else will Apple start the year off with a bang as they like to do?
It could be higher clocked G4s...but do we have evidence of higher clocked G4s? 1.5 gig G4s...? When Motorola can barely scrape 1.25 gigs...after almost nine months(!) since the dual giggers...? That puts us at 1.4 ish in another nine months if we're lucky!!!
I think the current line have a Yikes 'muddle' / end of the line feel about them.
What I can't understand is that the chief of Nvidia stated that some 'big announcements in the Mac space soon' to paraphrase.
So. What happened?
N30 got delayed is what happened. It's probably just taped out. It will probably make it for January at this rate.
It would be great if a G5 Hypertransport could make it for then with March shipping!!!
Stop gap or not. I have a B & W G3 400. I feel old....dirt old. Jaguar will be the last OS I install on this sucker... I am itching for a new PMac but know that patience will pay off one day...
Actually Motorola is quite abysmal. They have some operations just outside Toronto. I know people that worked there, half of all our conversation were about how much it sucked, even when they weren't complaining about how much it sucked. People basically came an went as they pleased, came in late, left early, took it very easy. Everything was always delayed and there was virtually no pressure from management to get things done. Nice place to work, but not the best partner to depend on if you need timely product.
Comments
Would that free up another facility for something else?
It may not have anything to do with anything that Apple can use, but WTH is going on with PPC production at Mot???
Will they ever use a .13u process on the G4?
Other people said (and again this could be pure conjecture) that after a long while Mot finally cleaned up their fab. Does any of this portend of Hip7 G4's ???
While the IBM news probably points to a new high-end chip for mac, I presume that we'll be living with G4's for some time to yet in the lesser macs.
At the very least Mot should want to do this for it's embedded customers!
Then again adding a SIMD unit to IBM's Sahara could make that chip the perfect low power G4 replacement.
If Apple can design such a board, what stops them from running the MPX bus at 200 or 266MHz in SDR mode? They would have to carefully design the motherboard and especially the daughter card. For one thing they would have to bring the memory controller on the card and get it as close to the processor(s) as possible. Perhaps even right under the processor (on the other side of the PCB). The problems I see doing it another way is that a 266MHz signal may not pass through the daughter board connector well enough. This would last us until we have the IBM chip probably in late 2003.
<strong>Riddle me this:
If Apple can design such a board, what stops them from running the MPX bus at 200 or 266MHz in SDR mode? They would have to carefully design the motherboard and especially the daughter card. For one thing they would have to bring the memory controller on the card and get it as close to the processor(s) as possible. Perhaps even right under the processor (on the other side of the PCB). The problems I see doing it another way is that a 266MHz signal may not pass through the daughter board connector well enough. This would last us until we have the IBM chip probably in late 2003.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aside from technical difficulties, there is the problem of cash to throw at such a project. Also, Apple probably wnats to move to something other than mpx, not to further entrench themsleves with the mpx bus standard. It would be like getting a new coat of paint for a 1990 Hyundai excel.
A Sahara+VMX would probably be in the same performance ballpark as the G4, except for double precision floating point (it doesn't have the G4's more advanced unit) and in bus performance (MPX is more efficient even though it only goes up to 166, compared to the Sahara's 200). I think the Sahara has fewer execution units and other internal resources, so it would probably be slightly slower than the 7455, although its pipelines are shorter. I also wouldn't count on its VMX unit being quite as fast -- they'd probably go for a low-power implementation (although with some of the stuff I've read about the work at IBM you never know). I'd expect to see Apple use it at lower clock rates in their iBook line due to its better power efficiency.
Good lord..enough of the G3. You can't polish a turd people.
<strong>
Me too! I don't know which OS X other people are using but mine is lightyears away from Win2k in terms of stability.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Check your RAM. Seriously. Gauge Pro is an OS9 only tool that does a *very* comprehensive testing of your RAM... which is how I found out that a module was bad in my Pismo, after Apple's tools (even their professional diagnostics) failed to find the problem.
I went from an *amazingly* flaky system to one that's rock solid. If that machine had been my only one, I'm sure I'd have a very different idea of MacOS X, but since my B/W G3 was a *rock*, I knew it had to be the machine, somehow.
can the mobo be used for a new cpu? so why bother with the advanced system controller when new cpu's could have a on chip controller or is that not the same. it seems that apple went into a lot of trouble for a seemingly moderate speedbump or did is mobo prepared for a significant future upgrade of the cpu's
<strong>what i do not get is the following. apple designs a complete new mobo where they offload the cpu's. the cpu's are essentially the same ones as before, except for 166 bus, but suddenly require a massive heatsink with ditto fan. could this be because of the 25% overclocking?
can the mobo be used for a new cpu? so why bother with the advanced system controller when new cpu's could have a on chip controller or is that not the same. it seems that apple went into a lot of trouble for a seemingly moderate speedbump or did is mobo prepared for a significant future upgrade of the cpu's</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps this controller has features that we don't know about. After all it's not the controller that's hosing us it's the MPX controller between the procs and RAM.
What if this new controller had hidden features that have yet to be enabled. Maybe a pdf with some juicy info will arise someday.
Motorola: What can we say about the abysmal company. It seem that the development of the G5 may have been stopped a year or so ago when Motorola made major cuts to their semiconductor group. I also find it quite possible that Apple has funded the improvements to the current G4. Where are the 1.4 or 1.6 GHz chips we have heard so much about? Do they exist? They exist as Apples insurance to have one final speed bump out of G4 design. If Apples new processor is not ready in time you will see these processors, if the new processors do make it out in time these chips will only be used in the consumer models.
Intel & AMD: The speed of there chips increase and their cost keeps going down. At first it seems like a good idea using these chips in your new computers. Apple would have a problem with this. The first of their problems would be the margins; most people would expect the cost of apple hardware to be in line with comparable hardware (same processors, video, memory, etc…
IBM: Is developing a new desktop Power4 Chip and we all are waiting to hear what is going to be said at the Microprocessor Forum in October where IBM will disclose the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s.
Apple: Is a company that is still delivering great designs as well as outstanding consumer applications. What is holding back Apple is the Hardware. If Apple was shipping 2+GHz on 400 or 533 MHz Motherboards the Apple Faithful would be grinning from ear to ear (yes you would still have those who would find something to complain about). But what is Apple doing?
-The new motherboard controller chip was certainly planed and built because Apple is well aware of the Motorola chip problems. This is clearly a stop gap measure until a whole new line of pro level computers are delivered (although it will be used in the consumer line until they get step up sometime after the new line has seen a revision or two).
-Apple is buy graphic and audio companies and killing of the window versions.
-Apple has 4 billion in cash on hand and I bet they have a few companies to buy.
What does this mean Apple is getting all its duck in a row… switch campaign to have people look at the Macintosh (iPod for windows helps here), Let IBM start the buzz about their a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor, all this while Apple is designing new motherboards and working with graphic companies to improve the video on their systems so sometime next year apple will come out with a that the industry will have to stop and take notice….the switch may then be on.
<strong>what i do not get is the following. apple designs a complete new mobo where they offload the cpu's. the cpu's are essentially the same ones as before, except for 166 bus, but suddenly require a massive heatsink with ditto fan. could this be because of the 25% overclocking?
can the mobo be used for a new cpu? so why bother with the advanced system controller when new cpu's could have a on chip controller or is that not the same. it seems that apple went into a lot of trouble for a seemingly moderate speedbump or did is mobo prepared for a significant future upgrade of the cpu's</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two facts. First the FSB is not overclocked. It has just had its clock speed improved. There is no difference between now and when the original G4 went from a 100 MHz bus to a 133MHz bus or the PIV increased its FSB speed. Only in the case of the original G4 switch they released a new chip at the same time to make it possible to scale.
This motherboard will serve at least one more upgrade and possibly 2. Really it will have a life of around a year that's plenty of reason to design it.
<strong>The very thought that the 1.25GHz 7455 are overclocked is depressing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, that's why it takes 6-8 weeks to get a new 1.25 GHz system!
Apple has a big room full of 1 GHz systems that they've cranked up to 1.25 GHz. Those that survive the next six weeks without crashing or burning up will be sold as 1.25 GHz systems.
This was yet another silent update of the PMs. This was yet another small update of the PMs. This was a emergency releace with patchwork solutions like the system controller. There hasnt been a keynote PM release for quite a long time.
Conclusions:
1. Apple doesnt care for the Powermacs or the pro users. (Well shoot me!
2. The G4 has reached its peak performance, this is as far as it goes. Apple has squeezed all thats possible out of G4 based computers.
Questions:
1. How big will the next keynote release of the Powermacs be opposed to the silent uppdates?
2. How soon will the next keynote release be?
3. What kind of update would justify being in the next Powermac keynote release?
<strong>
I disagree, Apple will drop OS 9 booting as soon as they think that they can, that way they dont have to wast development time and money to make it work. Doing so will also increase the install base of OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the system startup disk in X, 9 will no longer be an option.
<strong>Holy crap PSCATES, great post! You really really hit the nail on the head...
As far as MWSF, there is no way in H that there will be a brand new Powermac...not this soon after a big revision...
And as far as the post about this being the groundwork for the next proc. (ie "yikesv.2), I would say "I hope not". DDR is where the industry is today, they didn't prepare for the future, they just caught up to the present. DDRII is right around the corner as is serialATA and Hypertransport. Why does apple still include UltraATA66 for gods sake, are they really saving that much by not making both controllers ATA100, or even RAID built in considering the market for this thing. Anyhoo, The next chip will hopefully be on an all new platform w/ some future (soon to be current) tech.
Oh yeah, I'm also very happy with the current releases!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What revision? This was an update. The cycle is every 6-7 months so MWSF is acceptable. I think it comes down to how high the G4 will scale. We're only getting 166-250mhz increases so that means around 1.5ghz in January. If Mot can't deliver or IBM is ready, why not MWSF?
Gauge Pro is not currently available.
Newer Tech's site is down since they've got new owners.
=(
If you have used anything today that has electronic circuits, you probably have depended on some Motorola chip of some kind.
Just because Motorola isn't all gung-ho about developing a desktop cpu for Apple doesn't make them instantly stupid. Get over it, Apple chose Motorola/IBM not the other way around.
They only thing I am frustrated w/ Motorola is they just absolutely seem against taking the financial chance developing a high end desktop cpu and that Apple, with this cpu, could significantly increase market share, therefore, justifying the huge investment in R&D.
But it is easy using other people's money, in this case Motorola's. and their stockholders.
But to keep slamming Motorola is pointless and wrong, flat wrong.
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
Plenty of finger pointing. Apple went with Moto'...IBM lost incentive...where to start. Jobs killed the clones...the clones were pinching share from the mothership not expanding the market etc.
Sigh.
It looks like the 'G5' we want won't be coming from Moto'. Killed, cancelled by Moto' and/or Apple.
The closest evidence we have to a 'G5' is IBM's forth coming announcement at the Microprocessor Forum.
When these types of annoucements came from Moto'...the processor followed about a year later. From IBM? A cpu company not losing Billions?
Next Summer with 'fall' shipping at the outside.
Surprise? Macworld San Fran'. The current 'G4' consumer chip (sorry, slip of the tongue...) seems so botched up in hack serve style cases that I'm hoping for a January reprieve to these dual cheese grating disasters.
How else will Apple start the year off with a bang as they like to do?
It could be higher clocked G4s...but do we have evidence of higher clocked G4s? 1.5 gig G4s...? When Motorola can barely scrape 1.25 gigs...after almost nine months(!) since the dual giggers...? That puts us at 1.4 ish in another nine months if we're lucky!!!
I think the current line have a Yikes 'muddle' / end of the line feel about them.
What I can't understand is that the chief of Nvidia stated that some 'big announcements in the Mac space soon' to paraphrase.
So. What happened?
N30 got delayed is what happened. It's probably just taped out. It will probably make it for January at this rate.
It would be great if a G5 Hypertransport could make it for then with March shipping!!!
Lemon Bon Bon