64bit CPU (GPUL) from IBM and Apple

mclaugd1mclaugd1
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
This <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543317,00.asp"; target="_blank">eWeek article</a> describes the new Power4 variant which appears to be destined for mid-2003 based Macs. Looks to me like the kind of kick-ass hardware that MacOS X deserves.



Comments?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Didn't you read all twenty pages of the other meandering thread? Why start fresh when you can get into a big winding tangential discussion (well actually 4 or 5 lesser discussions all going on in the same space)



    IBL!!! (In Before Lock) WOO-HOO!!! hehehe...



    Thanks for the heads up, I just thought I'd get that out of the way.
  • Reply 2 of 52
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Thanks for think'n of us, mclaugd1. They kinda beat ya to it in that 'Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?' thread. I think it's on page 20. Sorry.



    IBL <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 3 of 52
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    The day they put that GPUL processor (-group) in a Mac is the day I buy a new Mac. Go Apple!
  • Reply 4 of 52
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,438member
    I dont think GPUL is G5.



    I think it's a new processor for Workstation Class Macs. Something that Apple can push into new markets like High End Compositing and Maya Front ends.



    I think it would be dangerous to think that this processor which by eweeks words could be 4x faster than the current 1gzhz G4's would be priced like the current Powermacs.



    Perhaps Apple is trying to branch out in more than one area.



    High end= GPUL

    Midrange= G4/G5

    Low End -X86



    It's all coming together. This is Apple's strategy to get to %20 marketshare!
  • Reply 5 of 52
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    One question : assuming that the GPUL will a dual core chip, is it possible in order to reduce the number of transistors that only one core will include VMX SIMD unit.



    This trick will save transistors and therefore money and watts consumption. I will add that the more important thing for Apple is to close the gap in term in performance speaking of Spec int and Spec fp. Their SIMD unit is already better than the X86 world : they don't need to improve it for the moment;
  • Reply 6 of 52
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    In before the lock.
  • Reply 6 of 52
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>I dont think GPUL is G5.



    I think it's a new processor for Workstation Class Macs. Something that Apple can push into new markets like High End Compositing and Maya Front ends.



    I think it would be dangerous to think that this processor which by eweeks words could be 4x faster than the current 1gzhz G4's would be priced like the current Powermacs.



    Perhaps Apple is trying to branch out in more than one area.



    High end= GPUL

    Midrange= G4/G5

    Low End -X86



    It's all coming together. This is Apple's strategy to get to %20 marketshare!</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Keep in mind the power4 is priced based on server, software, support and tons of extras etc and not on the chip itself. There's no reason IBM can't make this chip by itself affordable.
  • Reply 8 of 52
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>I dont think GPUL is G5.





    High end= GPUL

    Midrange= G4/G5

    Low End -X86



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have no problem with higd end and midrange, but low end X86 that does not make sense. If Apple choose X86 it will be for all his computers and because he has no other choices.

    Developping os X for X86 is a form of assurance policy : if the PPC world is dying, Apple will be able to survive but at the cost of a huge migration like the one from 68K to PPC (perhaps smoother if Apple anticipated this a long time ago).
  • Reply 9 of 52
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    x86 is on its way out for real this time. Why support it? Even with Hammer it's only going to be useful for backward compatibility...which doesn't exist with the Apple-x86 combination.
  • Reply 10 of 52
    brunobruinbrunobruin Posts: 552member
    [quote]I think it's a new processor for Workstation Class Macs. Something that Apple can push into new markets like High End Compositing and Maya Front ends. <hr></blockquote>



    I agree with hmurchison. I have been wondering if Apple will leverage Shake, etc with high-powered hardware that would slot above the Power Mac (and be priced accordingly). That processor/tech would migrate down eventually, but I'm thinking high-end workstations first, and tight integration with Xserve.
  • Reply 11 of 52
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    My first ever "IBL" post. wOOTangclan!
  • Reply 12 of 52
    wormboywormboy Posts: 220member
    The twenty page thread ON THIS EXACT TOPIC actually has 15 pages of material that is worth reading.



    Don't you guys get it? If you have multiple threads on the same topic, nobody will be able to assume any foreknowledge on the part of their readers when they post. I don't want to have to read several threads on the same topic, that rehashes the same ground again and again and again. If you've got something on topic to say, go there and say it! You don't have to read it all first (although that would be polite)!



    Now if we could just get Lemon Bon Bon to stay on topic in a thread... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 13 of 52
    jpfjpf Posts: 167member
    Brother. Apple is not going to make a x86 Mac. Not going to happen. Why do you people believe in that magical x86 crap. Gawd.



    Here's my rough dream list of what I see at the end of the 2003 year or early 2004.



    $499-$799 1.0Ghz G4 Cube

    $999-$1499 1.25Ghz G4 eMac

    $1099-$1999 1.5Ghz G4 iMac

    $1499-$2999 2x 1.8Ghz G4 PowerMac

    $2999-$3999 2x 1.8Ghz G4 Xserve

    $3999-$5999 Dual-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL PowerMac

    $5999-$7999 Quad-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL PowerMac

    $4999-$6999 Dual-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL Xserve

    $6999-$8999 Quad-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL Xserve
  • Reply 14 of 52
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>I dont think GPUL is G5.



    I think it's a new processor for Workstation Class Macs. Something that Apple can push into new markets like High End Compositing and Maya Front ends.



    I think it would be dangerous to think that this processor which by eweeks words could be 4x faster than the current 1gzhz G4's would be priced like the current Powermacs.



    Perhaps Apple is trying to branch out in more than one area.



    High end= GPUL

    Midrange= G4/G5

    Low End -X86



    It's all coming together. This is Apple's strategy to get to %20 marketshare!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is the closest credible evidence of a chip beyond the G4 as it stands today. For the PoweraMac range of power they have at most 1 upgrade cycle left in the G4. For consumer computers the G4 might last a few more years if Motorolla does move it to a smaller die process, and possibly moving to MP systems. I do think that it makes sense that Apple makes a higher performance system than the current PM's, however unless they address the shortcommings, both percieved and real, in the current shipping models as well I doubt that Apple will be able to increase their market share, and risk it eroding.
  • Reply 15 of 52
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Well, in defense of this thread having the right to a seperate existence, I would say that the other thread is speculation about whether or not IBM will make the G5, and this one is about the eWeek article that would seem to confirm that IBM will be making the G5. Also, this article provides information on both speed and release date. In other words, this thread can bypass the 21 some pages of prolog and procede directly to people ranting about how they have to wait until late summer for their new CPU's. This thread has what the other one lacked: some credible confirmation to the rumors.



    The threads have different titles and as such they DO discuss different things. So, let's discuss this new IBM chip that eWeek is talking about.



    p.s. IBL :-)



    [ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Yevgeny ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 52
    wormboywormboy Posts: 220member
    [quote] This thread has what the other one lacked: some credible confirmation to the rumors <hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    hardly.
  • Reply 17 of 52
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    [quote]Originally posted by Yevgeny:

    <strong>Well, in defense of this thread having the right to a seperate existence, I would say that the other thread is speculation about whether or not IBM will make the G5, and this one is about the eWeek article that would seem to confirm that IBM will be making the G5. Also, this article provides information on both speed and release date. In other words, this thread can bypass the 21 some pages of prolog and procede directly to people ranting about how they have to wait until late summer for their new CPU's. This thread has what the other one lacked: some credible confirmation to the rumors.



    The threads have different titles and as such they DO discuss different things. So, let's discuss this new IBM chip that eWeek is talking about.



    p.s. IBL :-)



    [ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Yevgeny ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    exactly and no OSX on x86 bs



    i don't want to read about something as depressing as OSX on a aldi pc.



    by the way does the eWEEK article mean that the G5 is the Motorola processor mentioned and sighted in the fall 2001 and de GPUL will be the G6?



    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 18 of 52
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    [quote]Originally posted by wormboy:

    <strong>



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    hardly.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Contrary to what you might think, eWeek IS credible- certainly more credible than anything that has its genesis here. And hey- beggars can't be choosers. I have been reading eWeek for something like seven years (back when it was pcWeek- the old pcWeek.com URL still works) and they are usually rather reliable. If they say this is what IBM is doing, then I believe them. What I would think us up for grabs is the delivery schedule.
  • Reply 19 of 52
    goof_ballgoof_ball Posts: 15member
    If Apple does move to an IBM Power variant, I don't think anyone will expect a complete sudden transition.....which is another reason why Apple really needs to include an altivec equivalent. I'm sure the new server quality chips will be expensive at first but still a good move for Apple. If mid next year they release the chips in high priced servers, it's only a matter of time before they trickle down to all their products at a reasonable price.



    oh ya, you won't see OSX on an x86 EVER!
  • Reply 20 of 52
    off/langoff/lang Posts: 98member
    [quote]Originally posted by JPF:

    <strong>Brother. Apple is not going to make a x86 Mac. Not going to happen. Why do you people believe in that magical x86 crap. Gawd.



    Here's my rough dream list of what I see at the end of the 2003 year or early 2004.



    $499-$799 1.0Ghz G4 Cube

    $999-$1499 1.25Ghz G4 eMac

    $1099-$1999 1.5Ghz G4 iMac

    $1499-$2999 2x 1.8Ghz G4 PowerMac

    $2999-$3999 2x 1.8Ghz G4 Xserve

    $3999-$5999 Dual-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL PowerMac

    $5999-$7999 Quad-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL PowerMac

    $4999-$6999 Dual-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL Xserve

    $6999-$8999 Quad-Core 1x 1.8Ghz GPUL Xserve</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What about the portables?
Sign In or Register to comment.