From Macwhispers as posted above but with a little more detail.
Quote:
Essentially, the PPC 970 family of chips is about 25% to 35% less costly to Apple than the latest family of Motorola G4 chips... a fact which, we believe, speaks volumes about the likely adoption of the new 970-based machine architecture in Apple's product line.
Speaking of benchmarks...here's some benches regarding price.
In short:
Can we say mass adoption throughout the Apple line? This has implications for those G4 iBook dreamers. Not likely to happen. More likely a short pipelined, SIMD G3++!
There's no excuse for Apple not to hold dual processor formations in the tower line AND spread the goodness to the 'middle' tier iMac2. And stick some in the pro-laptops too!
Looks like IBM is going to tear Moto' another hole!!!
The impedance of video and audio RCA cables are different. Using the wrong type can result in ground loops and significant loss in sound quality.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said you can use a standard VIDEO cable to transmit digital coax. That is, a 75-ohm video cable. That is the same impedance as a supposed "digital coax" cable, even one costing $100 or more. You're confusing this with analog audio cables, which are generally not 75-ohm coax. The rest of your argument isn't really relevant... yes, while Toslink can be cheap too, Digital Coax is even cheaper, if only due to the extreme abundance of simple coaxial wires to carry the signal.
And yes, this is off-topic, but I can't stand it when people perpetuate myths about cables.
I dunno. I thought Shaktai's attempts to liven up the benchmark thread deserve some credit. Nice to see it engineered in an Appleworks Spreadsheet. Nice one, Shaktai!!!
Looks like the dual 970 is going to hound the Xeon in every corner. No place to hide, Intel. And then there'll be the price differential ('Price Bench' Rumour thanks to Macwhispers. Yet another area the 970 beats the snot out of the G4.)
There are some strong implications for Apple's relationship with Moto' (as if we didn't get that already...) and all those who thought the 970 wouldn't go into consumer products. Well. What are you going to put in the 'next' imac2 bump? A lame-ass 1.25 G4 or a 35% cheaper 1.4/1.6 gig 970?
That adds up to a price cut and/or a profit hike from/for Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Any change of a Vue bench seeing as Corel just iced Bruce (sorry, 'Bryce') for Mac?
Even after consuming the appropriate amount of salt with a MacWhispers rumor, keep in mind that 25%-35% cheaper than the current XPC7455 isn't saying much. They're hard for Mot to make, and concomitantly expensive. Of course, that's good news for the towers, which use the XPC part.
I'm more interested in the price (and power consumption) relative to the MPC7455, since that impacts the PowerBooks and the iMac.
I dunno. I thought Shaktai's attempts to liven up the benchmark thread deserve some credit. Nice to see it engineered in an Appleworks Spreadsheet. Nice one, Shaktai!!!
Looks like the dual 970 is going to hound the Xeon in every corner. No place to hide, Intel. And then there'll be the price differential ('Price Bench' Rumour thanks to Macwhispers. Yet another area the 970 beats the snot out of the G4.)
Thanks! I just kept looking at those MacBidouille benchmarks and they kept nagging at me for some reason. Since it is all speculation, I decided to do some speculating of my own. Question was where to start. Nevyn pointed out the Spec Int and Spec FP numbers. So I just took those and applied them to known benchmark comparisions form BareFeats. Just to keep it from seeming to unrealistic I cut the numbers in half. I was still wowed by the potential of the 970. While I didn't post it here, on my own I used the full Spec int numbers (on the spreadsheet) and it blew me away. The only thing I can say is that the 970 is big. Really, really big, and I don't think most folks will realize how big it is until we get those boxes in our hands.
There are a lot of variables but, some folks don't seem to realize how well even the lagard G4 from Motorola has held its own against overwhelming odds. When you add the 970's potential into the equation along with OS-X and eventually Panther, you don't get an upgrade, you get a revolution.
I for one wish moto would come up with something new, and continue to work with apple.
It's good to have options.
Who knows what may happen in 3 years?
Maybe we'll be calling IBM names, etc
If apple screws up their relationship with these f*****s :-), they will be 'stuck' with one supplier.
The only problem I see is that Motorola is a sinking ship. They haven't been able to produce a really good quarter in years. But that isn't what would cause me to question them.
The big clincher is that Motorola has publically said that they wish to focus on the embedded market. Apple shouldn't and can not stand by while their provider of chips changes direction.
Maybe if Motorola decides to re-focus themselves to PC Chip archetecture, then Apple could have two providers. However I wouldn't use the G4 variant, as much as I would use Motorola as another fabbing plant.
I for one wish moto would come up with something new, and continue to work with apple.
That ball's in Moto's court more than Apple's.
I honestly hope they do what I think they're trying to do. The frustrating thing is that they're not really that far from having a nice little CPU - not a 970, but nothing to sneeze at. It would be so nice if they took the necessary steps. Then it would be up to Steve to trust them as a supplier again...
Mike: Fabbing is precisely Mot SPS's Achilles heel. They'd be better as a design house and R&D lab than as a manufacturer. Much better. As for their emphasis on the embedded market, remember that laptops and LCD iMacs are essentially embedded computers in terms of the constraints they operate under. Mot's talents at working in conditions that require low power operation and sophisticated power management are quite useful to Apple. Big, hot, beastly CPUs tend to limit your design options.
The only problem I see is that Motorola is a sinking ship. They haven't been able to produce a really good quarter in years. But that isn't what would cause me to question them.
The big clincher is that Motorola has publically said that they wish to focus on the embedded market. Apple shouldn't and can not stand by while their provider of chips changes direction.
Maybe if Motorola decides to re-focus themselves to PC Chip archetecture, then Apple could have two providers. However I wouldn't use the G4 variant, as much as I would use Motorola as another fabbing plant.
Just my pearls of wisdom...
IBM was sinking ship at one time (or was sunk depending on how you look at it). Companies make mistakes, good companies recover and move their business along (like IBM did).
I wouldn't throw the towel in for MOTO yet. They have a large market in semiconductors to sell to and make many products.
Even after consuming the appropriate amount of salt with a MacWhispers rumor, keep in mind that 25%-35% cheaper than the current XPC7455 isn't saying much. They're hard for Mot to make, and concomitantly expensive. Of course, that's good news for the towers, which use the XPC part.
I'm more interested in the price (and power consumption) relative to the MPC7455, since that impacts the PowerBooks and the iMac.
Yeah, the price is very tantalizing--a high end chip with a low end price. Financially it makes sense for Apple to ditch the G4 and G3, and go entirely with the 970. Apple could easily differentiate products by MHz, Mobo, and dual/single configurations. For laptops, use the 970 in all, but "cripple" it in the iBooks with a lower GHz rating and slower memory bus. In the desktop arena, make the Powermacs all dual, and the consumer products all single CPU, and then use GHz as well to differentiate.
I'm hoping Apple uses this strategy, rather than either using the more expensive G4 and thus jacking up consumer product prices, or using a G3+Altivec. The hacked G3 wouldn't necessarily be bad, especially if it had a new RIO bus or a 970-derived bus that was fast, but a 970 would be even better. However if Apple could acquire very cheap altivec G3s from IBM, then it might be worthwhile to use them in low end macs to keep prices down and margins up.
Power consumption may be an issue, but I don't see this as a reason to stick with Moto. If this fabled G3+Altivec truly exists, then I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to use a Moto G4. None. Moto has proven over and over that they cannot scale their CPUs, and it's time for Apple to cast aside this ball and chain. It would be comically sad if the PPC 970 Macs are at 4 GHz 2 years from now, while the Moto-based low end products are all bogged-down at <2 GHz because Moto can't figure out how to fab anything smaller than 180 nm.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned if Jobs worked it something like this: Moto execs call him up and tell him the 7470 or whatever is finally ready for the Powerbooks, and Jobs tells them, "Great, but we've actually decided to go with a more reliable supplier. But thanks for thinking of us when you designed that chip, it's a very nice gesture. We'll keep you in mind for the future. Bye!".
It would be great as far as I'm concerned if Jobs worked it something like this: Moto execs call him up and tell him the 7470 or whatever is finally ready for the Powerbooks, and Jobs tells them, "Great, but we've actually decided to go with a more reliable supplier. But thanks for thinking of us when you designed that chip, it's a very nice gesture. We'll keep you in mind for the future. Bye!".
Oh come on now, that has to be the tamest thing you have said about Moto JYD! I expected something more on the lines of "caller ID indicates it's Motorola....Jobs: Su** the sw*** off my ba*** you slimy mu*** fu*****!!!!!"
Now, that's what I was expecting to read from ya....
Oh come on now, that has to be the tamest thing you have said about Moto JYD! I expected something more on the lines of "caller ID indicates it's Motorola....Jobs: Su** the sw*** off my ba*** you slimy mu*** fu*****!!!!!"
Now, that's what I was expecting to read from ya....
Is JD becoming more docile in his old age?? What has become of you Dawg??
If there was a single bit out of order that couldn't be corrected, you'd hear a DROPOUT, not just a reduction in quality manifested as some goofy audiophile term like "loss of brightness," "lack of punch", etc.
That's a common myth. What happens way before dropout is jitter from small corrections. Timing issues. But feel free to use whatever cable you want.
Sorry to go OT.
---
I don't believe a word reported on Whispers about the lower cost.
Comments
Essentially, the PPC 970 family of chips is about 25% to 35% less costly to Apple than the latest family of Motorola G4 chips... a fact which, we believe, speaks volumes about the likely adoption of the new 970-based machine architecture in Apple's product line.
Speaking of benchmarks...here's some benches regarding price.
In short:
Can we say mass adoption throughout the Apple line? This has implications for those G4 iBook dreamers. Not likely to happen. More likely a short pipelined, SIMD G3++!
There's no excuse for Apple not to hold dual processor formations in the tower line AND spread the goodness to the 'middle' tier iMac2. And stick some in the pro-laptops too!
Looks like IBM is going to tear Moto' another hole!!!
Lemon Bon Bon
The impedance of video and audio RCA cables are different. Using the wrong type can result in ground loops and significant loss in sound quality.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said you can use a standard VIDEO cable to transmit digital coax. That is, a 75-ohm video cable. That is the same impedance as a supposed "digital coax" cable, even one costing $100 or more. You're confusing this with analog audio cables, which are generally not 75-ohm coax. The rest of your argument isn't really relevant... yes, while Toslink can be cheap too, Digital Coax is even cheaper, if only due to the extreme abundance of simple coaxial wires to carry the signal.
And yes, this is off-topic, but I can't stand it when people perpetuate myths about cables.
Snappy aren't we today?
Ah, he's just suffering (P)P.M.T ('Pre-Power'Mac Tension.) It affects programmers worse than others...
Lemon Bon Bon
This thread seems to have wandered just a tad....
I dunno. I thought Shaktai's attempts to liven up the benchmark thread deserve some credit. Nice to see it engineered in an Appleworks Spreadsheet. Nice one, Shaktai!!!
Looks like the dual 970 is going to hound the Xeon in every corner. No place to hide, Intel. And then there'll be the price differential ('Price Bench' Rumour thanks to Macwhispers. Yet another area the 970 beats the snot out of the G4.)
There are some strong implications for Apple's relationship with Moto' (as if we didn't get that already...) and all those who thought the 970 wouldn't go into consumer products. Well. What are you going to put in the 'next' imac2 bump? A lame-ass 1.25 G4 or a 35% cheaper 1.4/1.6 gig 970?
That adds up to a price cut and/or a profit hike from/for Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. Any change of a Vue bench seeing as Corel just iced Bruce (sorry, 'Bryce') for Mac?
I'm more interested in the price (and power consumption) relative to the MPC7455, since that impacts the PowerBooks and the iMac.
They're hard for Mot to make
Yeah, we got that, Amorph...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I dunno. I thought Shaktai's attempts to liven up the benchmark thread deserve some credit. Nice to see it engineered in an Appleworks Spreadsheet. Nice one, Shaktai!!!
Looks like the dual 970 is going to hound the Xeon in every corner. No place to hide, Intel. And then there'll be the price differential ('Price Bench' Rumour thanks to Macwhispers. Yet another area the 970 beats the snot out of the G4.)
Thanks! I just kept looking at those MacBidouille benchmarks and they kept nagging at me for some reason. Since it is all speculation, I decided to do some speculating of my own. Question was where to start. Nevyn pointed out the Spec Int and Spec FP numbers. So I just took those and applied them to known benchmark comparisions form BareFeats. Just to keep it from seeming to unrealistic I cut the numbers in half. I was still wowed by the potential of the 970. While I didn't post it here, on my own I used the full Spec int numbers (on the spreadsheet) and it blew me away. The only thing I can say is that the 970 is big. Really, really big, and I don't think most folks will realize how big it is until we get those boxes in our hands.
There are a lot of variables but, some folks don't seem to realize how well even the lagard G4 from Motorola has held its own against overwhelming odds. When you add the 970's potential into the equation along with OS-X and eventually Panther, you don't get an upgrade, you get a revolution.
'Price Bench' Rumour thanks to Macwhispers. Yet another area the 970 beats the snot out of the G4.)
Any chance of finding out how much a G4e is, Shaktai? And knocking up a 'Price Bench' to see how much cheaper the 970 is? Just for laughts?
I think you make a good point about the 970's potential. In real world use...it's going to be a stunner on Panther. My gut instinct.
Lemon BOn BOn
When you add the 970's potential into the equation along with OS-X and eventually Panther, you don't get an upgrade, you get a revolution.
It's not a 10-25% jump in performance. It's platform changing.
'Revolution?'
Yes.
lemon bon bon
It's good to have options.
Who knows what may happen in 3 years?
Maybe we'll be calling IBM names, etc
If apple screws up their relationship with these f*****s :-), they will be 'stuck' with one supplier.
Originally posted by piwozniak
I for one wish moto would come up with something new, and continue to work with apple.
It's good to have options.
Who knows what may happen in 3 years?
Maybe we'll be calling IBM names, etc
If apple screws up their relationship with these f*****s :-), they will be 'stuck' with one supplier.
The only problem I see is that Motorola is a sinking ship. They haven't been able to produce a really good quarter in years. But that isn't what would cause me to question them.
The big clincher is that Motorola has publically said that they wish to focus on the embedded market. Apple shouldn't and can not stand by while their provider of chips changes direction.
Maybe if Motorola decides to re-focus themselves to PC Chip archetecture, then Apple could have two providers. However I wouldn't use the G4 variant, as much as I would use Motorola as another fabbing plant.
Just my pearls of wisdom...
Originally posted by piwozniak
I for one wish moto would come up with something new, and continue to work with apple.
That ball's in Moto's court more than Apple's.
I honestly hope they do what I think they're trying to do. The frustrating thing is that they're not really that far from having a nice little CPU - not a 970, but nothing to sneeze at. It would be so nice if they took the necessary steps. Then it would be up to Steve to trust them as a supplier again...
Mike: Fabbing is precisely Mot SPS's Achilles heel. They'd be better as a design house and R&D lab than as a manufacturer. Much better. As for their emphasis on the embedded market, remember that laptops and LCD iMacs are essentially embedded computers in terms of the constraints they operate under. Mot's talents at working in conditions that require low power operation and sophisticated power management are quite useful to Apple. Big, hot, beastly CPUs tend to limit your design options.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
The only problem I see is that Motorola is a sinking ship. They haven't been able to produce a really good quarter in years. But that isn't what would cause me to question them.
The big clincher is that Motorola has publically said that they wish to focus on the embedded market. Apple shouldn't and can not stand by while their provider of chips changes direction.
Maybe if Motorola decides to re-focus themselves to PC Chip archetecture, then Apple could have two providers. However I wouldn't use the G4 variant, as much as I would use Motorola as another fabbing plant.
Just my pearls of wisdom...
IBM was sinking ship at one time (or was sunk depending on how you look at it). Companies make mistakes, good companies recover and move their business along (like IBM did).
I wouldn't throw the towel in for MOTO yet. They have a large market in semiconductors to sell to and make many products.
IBM can produce their chips
Lemon Bon Bon
Big, hot, beastly CPUs tend to limit your design options.
But not your performance options.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Amorph
Even after consuming the appropriate amount of salt with a MacWhispers rumor, keep in mind that 25%-35% cheaper than the current XPC7455 isn't saying much. They're hard for Mot to make, and concomitantly expensive. Of course, that's good news for the towers, which use the XPC part.
I'm more interested in the price (and power consumption) relative to the MPC7455, since that impacts the PowerBooks and the iMac.
Yeah, the price is very tantalizing--a high end chip with a low end price. Financially it makes sense for Apple to ditch the G4 and G3, and go entirely with the 970. Apple could easily differentiate products by MHz, Mobo, and dual/single configurations. For laptops, use the 970 in all, but "cripple" it in the iBooks with a lower GHz rating and slower memory bus. In the desktop arena, make the Powermacs all dual, and the consumer products all single CPU, and then use GHz as well to differentiate.
I'm hoping Apple uses this strategy, rather than either using the more expensive G4 and thus jacking up consumer product prices, or using a G3+Altivec. The hacked G3 wouldn't necessarily be bad, especially if it had a new RIO bus or a 970-derived bus that was fast, but a 970 would be even better. However if Apple could acquire very cheap altivec G3s from IBM, then it might be worthwhile to use them in low end macs to keep prices down and margins up.
Power consumption may be an issue, but I don't see this as a reason to stick with Moto. If this fabled G3+Altivec truly exists, then I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to use a Moto G4. None. Moto has proven over and over that they cannot scale their CPUs, and it's time for Apple to cast aside this ball and chain. It would be comically sad if the PPC 970 Macs are at 4 GHz 2 years from now, while the Moto-based low end products are all bogged-down at <2 GHz because Moto can't figure out how to fab anything smaller than 180 nm.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned if Jobs worked it something like this: Moto execs call him up and tell him the 7470 or whatever is finally ready for the Powerbooks, and Jobs tells them, "Great, but we've actually decided to go with a more reliable supplier. But thanks for thinking of us when you designed that chip, it's a very nice gesture. We'll keep you in mind for the future. Bye!".
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
It would be great as far as I'm concerned if Jobs worked it something like this: Moto execs call him up and tell him the 7470 or whatever is finally ready for the Powerbooks, and Jobs tells them, "Great, but we've actually decided to go with a more reliable supplier. But thanks for thinking of us when you designed that chip, it's a very nice gesture. We'll keep you in mind for the future. Bye!".
Oh come on now, that has to be the tamest thing you have said about Moto JYD! I expected something more on the lines of "caller ID indicates it's Motorola....Jobs: Su** the sw*** off my ba*** you slimy mu*** fu*****!!!!!"
Now, that's what I was expecting to read from ya....
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Oh come on now, that has to be the tamest thing you have said about Moto JYD! I expected something more on the lines of "caller ID indicates it's Motorola....Jobs: Su** the sw*** off my ba*** you slimy mu*** fu*****!!!!!"
Now, that's what I was expecting to read from ya....
Is JD becoming more docile in his old age?? What has become of you Dawg??
Originally posted by Auream
If there was a single bit out of order that couldn't be corrected, you'd hear a DROPOUT, not just a reduction in quality manifested as some goofy audiophile term like "loss of brightness," "lack of punch", etc.
That's a common myth. What happens way before dropout is jitter from small corrections. Timing issues. But feel free to use whatever cable you want.
Sorry to go OT.
---
I don't believe a word reported on Whispers about the lower cost.