9OMM 970's AT THE END OF THE YEAR?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
According to Macbidouille, the 970 could be at .90 for portables, in order for Apple to completly end ties with Moto.http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcon...003-05-04#5424
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    ghstmarsghstmars Posts: 140member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ghstmars

    According to Macbidouille, the 970 could be at .90 for portables, in order for Apple to completly end ties with Moto.http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcon...003-05-04#5424



    and tomorrow they might show the roadmap for the year of the

    the new powermacs?

    two things : a very good mole or plain bullshit!! we' ll have to wait and find out. either way very ballsy very ballsy
  • Reply 2 of 60
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    The article from Macbidoulille in - yes- plain english:



    Quote:

    Apple is not the only one concerned about Motorola's production of PPC.

    Cisco, who develops and sells gateways based on G4 and 85xx processors, is

    also angry about the situation. Motorola is not able to produce the 8560

    (second generation of G5). Some even think that the production of these

    chips will be abandoned.



    The relationship between Apple and Motorola is so bad that every call Steve

    Jobs makes to Motorola ends up in a violent quarel. Therefore Steve prefers

    to cease the deal with Motorola during 2004's first trimester and work with

    IBM.



    IBM engineers are going to work hard in order to have the PPC 970 at 90nm

    ready for the end of this year in East Fishkill's laboratories. These

    processors will eventually replace PowerBooks' G4s.



    <? jour précédent | haut de page | jour suivant ?>



  • Reply 3 of 60
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    It's not ballsy at all. If Apple stuck with Motorola they would be stupid. Motorola seems to be improving their business practices, with one cost being the virtual disintegration of the SPS division.



    Apple, Cisco et al just need to find someone else. They problem being the CPU market is highly concentrated, so it takes several years before changes in suppliers can be made (with the exeption of Intel to AMD and vice versa).



    Barto
  • Reply 4 of 60
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Go get them, Steve.



    No smoke without fire. A bad marriage is just that. And people outside that marriage get to know eventually.



    The future for 2003 on seems to lie with IBM for now.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 5 of 60
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    that crazy apple french site has been reporting more often on the 970, do you think they have a good mole or it is just pure BS?
  • Reply 6 of 60
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    that crazy apple french site has been reporting more often on the 970, do you think they have a good mole or it is just pure BS?



    We're going to find out soon enough aren't we? I really hope there is a mole though
  • Reply 7 of 60
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    We're going to find out soon enough aren't we? I really hope there is a mole though



    It wouldn't be out of the question that this info could be from a 'mole'. After all IBM doesn't have the same 'keep this a secret or die a slow death at the hands of Steve' oath that Apple does. In fact IBM is USUALLY very open with the projects that it's developing. Note IBMs work on CELL and heck even it's ultra-advanced work in nano-tech... IBM has been very much an open book with these kinds of things so finding people who don't think it's a 'BIG HAIRY DEAL' to talk about em might not be that hard to do.



    From what I've heard, IBM has made finding out info about the 970 internally harder than many of their other projects (pure speculation is that this was done at the request of Apple)...



    disclaimer: 'I want to believe'



    Dave
  • Reply 8 of 60
    So no one's done the obvious yet?

    Quote:

    9OMM 970's AT THE END OF THE YEAR?



    Holy Crap! 970's with features that are over 3.5 inches!?!?





    _____



    Oh, and I wouldn't be supprised at all if this were true.
  • Reply 9 of 60
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    I did not understand your post.



    You are starting to sound like Macboudille translations...
  • Reply 10 of 60
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    I did not understand your post.





    90 MM
  • Reply 11 of 60
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    90 MM



    Just to be extra clear: 90mm, not 0.9nM.
  • Reply 12 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Clive

    Just to be extra clear: 90mm, not 0.9nM.



    Thanks Clive and JLL,



    but...



    it would be 0.09µm, or 90nm.
  • Reply 13 of 60
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    How the h*ll can MacBidouille know that every call between Moto and Steve end in a quarrel? That's just made up, it can't be based on actual reports. It's so full of bullshit.



    As for the rest.. it's probably just educated guesses.
  • Reply 14 of 60
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    How the h*ll can MacBidouille know that every call between Moto and Steve end in a quarrel? That's just made up, it can't be based on actual reports. It's so full of bullshit.



    As for the rest.. it's probably just educated guesses.






    I think MacBidouille is full of sh*t myself. MacBidouille 2003 = MacOSRumors 1999/2000.
  • Reply 15 of 60
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Let's hope we get to 0.09 microns this year as Intel is already at it with Centrino.
  • Reply 16 of 60
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Let's hope we get to 0.09 microns this year as Intel is already at it with Centrino.



    There's no .09 Centrino's on Intels Product Page .



    http://www.intel.com/products/notebo..._centrino+pmp&



    I don't think Intel is .09 micron until late this year.
  • Reply 17 of 60
    eskimoeskimo Posts: 474member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    There's no .09 Centrino's on Intels Product Page .



    http://www.intel.com/products/notebo..._centrino+pmp&



    I don't think Intel is .09 micron until late this year.




    jah, Intel's first 90nm processor will be Prescott (P4 successor)
  • Reply 18 of 60
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    I wonder if Cisco and Apple could twist Motorola's arm into making decent CPUs again?



    Or are they so far behind the curve that it's just useless at this point?



    Now I agree that Motorola needs a spanking for the G4 fiasco, but the more PowerPC makers, the better in my opinion. Is it lack of engineering talent, lack of decent fabrication plants, or lack of management that's truly holding Moto back?



    And will IBM remain committed to the PowerPC architecture 5 years down the road?
  • Reply 19 of 60
    ghstmarsghstmars Posts: 140member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gizzmonic

    I wonder if Cisco and Apple could twist Motorola's arm into making decent CPUs again?



    Or are they so far behind the curve that it's just useless at this point?



    Now I agree that Motorola needs a spanking for the G4 fiasco, but the more PowerPC makers, the better in my opinion. Is it lack of engineering talent, lack of decent fabrication plants, or lack of management that's truly holding Moto back?



    And will IBM remain committed to the PowerPC architecture 5 years down the road?




    Don't you think, that by IBM licensing the ppc architecture, this problem could be later on by taken care of?
  • Reply 20 of 60
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gizzmonic

    ....



    And will IBM remain committed to the PowerPC architecture 5 years down the road?




    There is no question. The POWER/PowerPC architecture is the basis of all but IBM's low-end systems (and some of those). Its low-end systems are based on the Intel x86. But, what of Itanium and isn't the x86 getting more powerful everyday? Well x86 is on life support. Intel has been trying to replace it for the better part of a decade now. As for Itanium, it is a dog. This dog not only has fleas, but it also has mange. People don't call it "Itanic" for nothing.



    Bottomline: The POWER/PPC architecture is good. It is homegrown. It has no credible replacement.
Sign In or Register to comment.