<strong>"Normal" (effective) bus frequencies: 533MHz, 666MHz, 800MHz.
The PowerPC 970 bus (ApplePI?) has 1 and 1/8th the Hz, the extra 1/8th being address data.
So, PowerPC 970 (effective) bus frequencies: 600MHz, 750MHz, 900MHz.
The PowerPC 970 appears to be fixed at 4x the (real) clock speed. DDR Bus is 1/2 the CPU clock.
1.2GHz, 1.5GHz, 1.8GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some interesting reasoning except it is known there is a 1.4 GHz part, which wouldn't fit in. I'd be inclined to guess and just say the speeds jump by 50 MHz each time for the bus or 200 MHz for the processor.
The data of the proposed processors I've seen states 1.4-1.8 GHz for 970 and 1.8-2.5 GHz for 970+. I suspect these are the specs of the initial batch of processors. I have no idea how 970 will scale in its 130 nm fab nor how 970+ will do.
The original G4 (7400) scaled miserably, but other PPC offerings have done quite well I guess. If 970 scales the same way the 970 will go quite a bit past 2 GHz. These are completely new processors on a new fab in a new foundary, so there are _a_lot_ of room for error in every prediction we make. IBM predicts 1.8 GHz initially, and I have a feeling that IBMs predictions are on the safe end of things.. as are the SPEC-marks.
"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
Thats not a good thing right off the bat. I would rather they used an IBM support chip and have a cheaper system all the while developing they're own support chip to deliver at the opportune time.
"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
Thats not a good thing right off the bat. I would rather they used an IBM support chip and have a cheaper system all the while developing they're own support chip to deliver at the opportune time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay this entire post is based on either insider info and or forum speculation (or both).
It's been said that the 970 was NOT designed for Apple but instead that Apple signed on later in the process. IBM had/has *other* plans for the 970 already. It's also been said that the 970 didn't begin it's life with VMX (altivec etc) but instead was added to the design at the request of Apple.
I dunno how much of the following is true but if we take it at face value that it is... Then I have to ask the following... Would IBM add AltiVec to the 970 just so Apple could sell a small number of boxes with it?
Remember iMacs and iBooks make up the lions share of Apple sales (in # of raw boxes sold) and even with the latest push to putting TWO PPCs in the PRO desktops the iMacs and iBooks still account for a much larger number (counting CPUs).
What I'm saying is I have my doubts that the 970 will only be used only an 'even more upscale box'.
Taking this comment alone....
"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM..."
If I'm not mistaken IBM has more than a fair bit of experience designing and producing custom ASICs and who better to do the support chip in the first place then the folks or built the cpu? Finally if IBM also has plans for the 970 then wouldn't that mean that they too would need a support chip? All I'm saying is I think most of this has been addressed quite some time ago. It's not like IBM just went to Apple last month and said 'Hey check this out pretty neat eh?'.
Remember as we are all talking about the 970 Apple and IBM or MOT or insert your favorite x86 cpu maker is on their way to planning the next next next gen CPUs.
Several has entertained the notion that as the 970 is a high performance CPU it has to be a high cost CPU as well.
That is not how it works. The producer is out there to make as much money as possible not to do that on a single chip. If IBM can produce a lot of the 970 at a resonabley low cost compared to AMD and Motorola CPUs, they might make more money selling a lot of them at a low price. The fact that the 604E was used in servers like the RS600 does not mean that the CPU as such was expensive, in fact it was used in budget computers such as the 7300/200.
Regarding the 90micro version of the G4 by Motorola. The last time Motorola manufactured a leading edge CPU it was the 40 MHz 68030 back in 1990. This was in the day of OS 6 and the multifinder way before OS 7 (remember that the high end 604E in the 8600/9600 and the fast G3s in the B&W was made by IBM).
My guess is that 2003 is the last year there will be any Motorola CPUs in the Macs. :cool:
<strong>"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
</strong>
Thats not a good thing right off the bat. I would rather they used an IBM support chip and have a cheaper system all the while developing they're own support chip to deliver at the opportune time.<hr></blockquote>
I don't agree with the original quote's reasoning. What is it about the support chip that will force the already upscale PowerMac further upwards? Apple has significantly increased the complexity of its support chips in the past and yet the PowerMacs (and high end Macs before that) have always hovered around the same price points. PC makers use chipsets of similar complexity for the PentiumIV at lower price points. This particular chipset may require shouldering an R&D burden (or sharing it with IBM, at least), or may eat into Apple's margins for a while... but that's why Apple has substantial margins. It used to be that a 64-bit wide 167 MHz bus was "out there", but guess what's under my desk now? This bus is synchronous paired unidirectional 32-bits wide channels @ 450 MHz w/ DDR, which is an interesting mix of simple and complex elements. I'm pretty sure that it was designed specifically to have low-cost fast implementations, just like HyperTransport is. I'm also pretty sure that Apple has had at least a year to design a support chip, and that by the time 2H '03 rolls around they will have it ready for production. The main question, to me, is whether it'll appear across the line immediately or just start in the PowerMac line (at the current price points). I'm guessing it'll lead in the PowerMacs for 6-9 months before leaking into the high end of the consumer machines, unless Motorola really does roll over and play dead.
<strong>Several has entertained the notion that as the 970 is a high performance CPU it has to be a high cost CPU as well. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This reminds me of another point. IBM could have designed a workstation chip, but they didn't. They didn't build a chip with ~1000 SPECmarks because that's the fastest thing they could build, they built this particular chip because they decided it was a good balance between cost, power consumption, and performance. What would the point of building such a balanced chip be if its cost was bloated by the system around the chip? IBM's design analysis extended beyond the chip's boundaries to include the system required to support it, especially since they wanted Apple to use it as well. If it was only going to go into expensive workstations they'd have thrown 100+ million transistors at it and really gone for the jugular.
I don't agree with the original quote's reasoning. What is it about the support chip that will force the already upscale PowerMac further upwards? Apple has significantly increased the complexity of its support chips in the past and yet the PowerMacs (and high end Macs before that) have always hovered around the same price points. PC makers use chipsets of similar complexity for the PentiumIV at lower price points. This particular chipset may require shouldering an R&D burden (or sharing it with IBM, at least), or may eat into Apple's margins for a while... but that's why Apple has substantial margins. It used to be that a 64-bit wide 167 MHz bus was "out there", but guess what's under my desk now? This bus is synchronous paired unidirectional 32-bits wide channels @ 450 MHz w/ DDR, which is an interesting mix of simple and complex elements. I'm pretty sure that it was designed specifically to have low-cost fast implementations, just like HyperTransport is. I'm also pretty sure that Apple has had at least a year to design a support chip, and that by the time 2H '03 rolls around they will have it ready for production. The main question, to me, is whether it'll appear across the line immediately or just start in the PowerMac line (at the current price points). I'm guessing it'll lead in the PowerMacs for 6-9 months before leaking into the high end of the consumer machines, unless Motorola really does roll over and play dead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that Apple has had enough time to at least have significant time to have a preliminary support chip but it would have had to be with much help with IBM. In fact i would not be the least surprised if this chip would not only be partially designed by IBM, but also fabricated and sold under the IBM name. IBM would also have exclusive rights to ship it with their own systems.
IBM may become a chipset maker and supplier for Apple. That's depends what wants Apple.
Concerning the prize of the Mobo, i don't think that the new mobo will cost a fortune. When i see the specs of the latest products of the X86 world and see their prize , i came to the conclusion that the performance prize ratio is better and better.
For example an asus A7V7X can support DDR memory (from pc 2100 to PC 3200) serial ATA, ethernet, USB 2, firewire, internal audio 6 channel, ata 133 and raid and AGP 8 X for 185 euros (perhaps a little less in $).
I doubt that an Apple mobo will cost more than 300 $.
I agree that Apple has had enough time to at least have significant time to have a preliminary support chip but it would have had to be with much help with IBM. In fact i would not be the least surprised if this chip would not only be partially designed by IBM, but also fabricated and sold under the IBM name. IBM would also have exclusive rights to ship it with their own systems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel supplies chipsets to go with their processors, no reason that IBM couldn't do the same. More likely, however, is that IBM & Apple would collaborate -- IBM could provide the bus interface "modules" which Apple would integrate onto their core chipset in place of the MPX interface. Then again, don't under estimate Apple's chipset design abilities, as far as we know they have a pretty solid team onsite.
"I dunno how much of the following is true but if we take it at face value that it is... Then I have to ask the following... Would IBM add AltiVec to the 970 just so Apple could sell a small number of boxes with it?"
If Motorola really are letting IBM to the Apple market, it would make sense that the 970...could...in time, be pervasive through Apple's whole line. Especially with the subsequent .9 die shrink. A million of anthing a quarter is no small amount of money.
Apple and Moto relations seem strained to me. Knowing Steve Jobs from what I've managed to garner...I don't think he could tolerate their level of 'competance'. Moto' may grace the consumer lines 2nd half this year/next year before the door hits them on the way out. But a .13 or .9 G4 would keep the consumer line happy for the next year-ish.
Seems to make sense that an IBM or Apple chipset or joint mobo venture would accompany the co-operation on the 970 front.
If Apple offered the business of Powermacs, Powerbooks and potentially iMac and iBook sales in due course in front of their nose as a carrot...then I'm sure IBM could include Altivec for a major customer. Everything I've read about the way IBM designs chips ala Power4 suggests they'd come round to the idea of VMX eventually. It's a tech' they could use in the embedded markets as Moto' does. So, if VMX doesn't fit for IBM re: 970, it's benefits may extend to other chips for IBM.
The way I see it. Most of the R&D is done via Power 4 and future Power5 chips. It's merely repackaging for a company as big as IBM. Hardly hard work to include VMX and Mobo designs for not only Apple but for your own markets as well.
Yeesh. X86 mobo makers spit out Motherboards left, right and centre. Why is there this question mark over Apple or even IBM? Two substantial companies in their own right.
If we view the IBM/APPLE collaboration as a real long term project, I see no reason why the partnership couldn't go from strength to strength. IBM gives Apple a definite cpu road map and in turn, Apple can offset the R&D. Back scratching.
Unix, PPC, Desktop, Gaming, Multimedia, the Internet, low end server. They have much in common.
And there's no way I see 970 being used in uberworkstations. It's pretty obvious it's a desktop chip...that will be competitive with whatever is in the x86 desktop market this time next year. Especially if you extrapolate the spec scores.
At which, the x86 might 'eek' ahead. But then, this 'platform' neutral bench indicates a G4 is ten times slower than intel's current? If anything, if the G4 is in the 'ball park' with current performance than I think the 970 will have the edge in 'real world' performance. But we'll have to wait and see for that. But hey, a PPC chip that has 'level playing field' spec scores? That's a feat in itself! And any chip that will have four times the performance of a G4 at its debut speed sounds okay to me. Got cash? I'm saving mine.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
PS. A headline/link/source on Macrumors:
"RealWorldTech posts some detailed notes from IBM's presentation last week. Here are some hilights:
- the SIMD unit is AltiVec compatible
- PowerPC 970 has already "taped out", parts exist in labs, undergoing performance eval and debugging
- Second half of 2003 is when volume production is expected
- if Apple adopts the 970, 32-bit applications can run seamlessly, after OS modifications are made
- due to the subsystem support required for the chip, "Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale".
IBM quoted 1.4 GHz chips as existing. When technical documentation appears my guess is the bus will look like the GX bus except with a 4:1 clockspeed to bus speed ratio instead of 3:1. Oh and the PPC 970 will be double pumped.
1. i thought the VMX unit on the 970 is divided into two seperate working units which work on the same instructions but split them up before processing (data handling, instruction processing or s.th.) however - i'm no expert on this but i think this is the way the G4/7400 managed altivec-processing too.... so these TWO altivec units are nothing more than ONE altivec unit...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The two AltiVec units are seperate execution units in the same way as the G4 has 3 integer units, a branch unit, a condition unit, a floating point unit, and a couple of vector units. Each of these handles some of the instructions. I don't know if the 970 divides its vector instructions into math & permute, or some other way... but there are two units which appear as the one "logical" view of the VMX unit.
I tend to agree. Looks like the chip has potential. And the target range is 1.4-1.8.
I think that sounds about right for the then Powermac range.
A 1.4 low end may not sound that much but its offering the equivalent of a 2.8 gig G4, not to mention all the other goodies then...it'd be a nice 'low end' PowerMac.
One question, is the reason why the G4 performed so badly in the Spec marks because each major cpu manufacturer have to submit compilers to run the Spec tests and that Moto have done a lousy job of writing them? Yes, I'm critical of the G4's performance, due, in part, to the way Moto' has clearly mismanaged its development but there's no way the current x86 chips have the lead over the G4 that current Spec scores indicate...as real world performance would indicate otherwise.
If this is the case, surely IBM, of all people, would do a much better job? And therefore, don't the Spec' marks have room to grow if we take this into the 'Spec' equation?
With samples in Quarter 2 2003, it looks like a volume ramp for 2nd half 2003 which leaves a post Macworld New York shipping date?
One question, is the reason why the G4 performed so badly in the Spec marks because each major cpu manufacturer have to submit compilers to run the Spec tests and that Moto have done a lousy job of writing them? Yes, I'm critical of the G4's performance, due, in part, to the way Moto' has clearly mismanaged its development but there's no way the current x86 chips have the lead over the G4 that current Spec scores indicate...as real world performance would indicate otherwise.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the Motorola compilers are actually pretty good. AFAIK, SPEC runs on very large blocks of data with poor cache coherency and this hurts the G4 worse than most other chips because of its relatively slow MPX bus. If the benchmarks emphasized a heavily used working set of 1 MB then the G4 would, I'm sure, stack up much better.
BTW: I noticed that the 970's VMX unit isn't exactly compatible with the AltiVec unit... the difference is that is supports up to 8 hardware prefetch streams instead of the 4 supported by AltiVec. A subtle difference, and one that the application software won't really notice (although the OS code could take advantage of it a little). I wonder if there are other differences...?
Comments
The PowerPC 970 bus (ApplePI?) has 1 and 1/8th the Hz, the extra 1/8th being address data.
So, PowerPC 970 (effective) bus frequencies: 600MHz, 750MHz, 900MHz.
The PowerPC 970 appears to be fixed at 4x the (real) clock speed. DDR Bus is 1/2 the CPU clock.
1.2GHz, 1.5GHz, 1.8GHz.
Future clock speeds will be 2^n of the original 3.
2.4GHz, 3.0GHz, 3.6GHz
4.8GHz, 6.0GHz, 7.2GHz
9.6GHz, 12.0GHz, 14.4GHz
Barto
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>"Normal" (effective) bus frequencies: 533MHz, 666MHz, 800MHz.
The PowerPC 970 bus (ApplePI?) has 1 and 1/8th the Hz, the extra 1/8th being address data.
So, PowerPC 970 (effective) bus frequencies: 600MHz, 750MHz, 900MHz.
The PowerPC 970 appears to be fixed at 4x the (real) clock speed. DDR Bus is 1/2 the CPU clock.
1.2GHz, 1.5GHz, 1.8GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some interesting reasoning except it is known there is a 1.4 GHz part, which wouldn't fit in. I'd be inclined to guess and just say the speeds jump by 50 MHz each time for the bus or 200 MHz for the processor.
The original G4 (7400) scaled miserably, but other PPC offerings have done quite well I guess. If 970 scales the same way the 970 will go quite a bit past 2 GHz. These are completely new processors on a new fab in a new foundary, so there are _a_lot_ of room for error in every prediction we make. IBM predicts 1.8 GHz initially, and I have a feeling that IBMs predictions are on the safe end of things.. as are the SPEC-marks.
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Henriok ]</p>
"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
Thats not a good thing right off the bat. I would rather they used an IBM support chip and have a cheaper system all the while developing they're own support chip to deliver at the opportune time.
<strong>I saw this comment on Real World Tech:
"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
Thats not a good thing right off the bat. I would rather they used an IBM support chip and have a cheaper system all the while developing they're own support chip to deliver at the opportune time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay this entire post is based on either insider info and or forum speculation (or both).
It's been said that the 970 was NOT designed for Apple but instead that Apple signed on later in the process. IBM had/has *other* plans for the 970 already. It's also been said that the 970 didn't begin it's life with VMX (altivec etc) but instead was added to the design at the request of Apple.
I dunno how much of the following is true but if we take it at face value that it is... Then I have to ask the following... Would IBM add AltiVec to the 970 just so Apple could sell a small number of boxes with it?
Remember iMacs and iBooks make up the lions share of Apple sales (in # of raw boxes sold) and even with the latest push to putting TWO PPCs in the PRO desktops the iMacs and iBooks still account for a much larger number (counting CPUs).
What I'm saying is I have my doubts that the 970 will only be used only an 'even more upscale box'.
Taking this comment alone....
"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM..."
If I'm not mistaken IBM has more than a fair bit of experience designing and producing custom ASICs and who better to do the support chip in the first place then the folks or built the cpu? Finally if IBM also has plans for the 970 then wouldn't that mean that they too would need a support chip? All I'm saying is I think most of this has been addressed quite some time ago. It's not like IBM just went to Apple last month and said 'Hey check this out pretty neat eh?'.
Remember as we are all talking about the 970 Apple and IBM or MOT or insert your favorite x86 cpu maker is on their way to planning the next next next gen CPUs.
Dave
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>
Finally if IBM also has plans for the 970 then wouldn't that mean that they too would need a support chip?
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
Makes perfect sense to me. IBM did say this chip is for the desktop market. They didn't say the $10,000 workstation market.
That is not how it works. The producer is out there to make as much money as possible not to do that on a single chip. If IBM can produce a lot of the 970 at a resonabley low cost compared to AMD and Motorola CPUs, they might make more money selling a lot of them at a low price. The fact that the 604E was used in servers like the RS600 does not mean that the CPU as such was expensive, in fact it was used in budget computers such as the 7300/200.
Regarding the 90micro version of the G4 by Motorola. The last time Motorola manufactured a leading edge CPU it was the 40 MHz 68030 back in 1990. This was in the day of OS 6 and the multifinder way before OS 7 (remember that the high end 604E in the 8600/9600 and the fast G3s in the B&W was made by IBM).
My guess is that 2003 is the last year there will be any Motorola CPUs in the Macs. :cool:
<strong>"Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale, and Apple would likely retain the use of the PowerPC G4 processors for the lower end iMac and eMac product lines."
</strong>
Thats not a good thing right off the bat. I would rather they used an IBM support chip and have a cheaper system all the while developing they're own support chip to deliver at the opportune time.<hr></blockquote>
I don't agree with the original quote's reasoning. What is it about the support chip that will force the already upscale PowerMac further upwards? Apple has significantly increased the complexity of its support chips in the past and yet the PowerMacs (and high end Macs before that) have always hovered around the same price points. PC makers use chipsets of similar complexity for the PentiumIV at lower price points. This particular chipset may require shouldering an R&D burden (or sharing it with IBM, at least), or may eat into Apple's margins for a while... but that's why Apple has substantial margins. It used to be that a 64-bit wide 167 MHz bus was "out there", but guess what's under my desk now? This bus is synchronous paired unidirectional 32-bits wide channels @ 450 MHz w/ DDR, which is an interesting mix of simple and complex elements. I'm pretty sure that it was designed specifically to have low-cost fast implementations, just like HyperTransport is. I'm also pretty sure that Apple has had at least a year to design a support chip, and that by the time 2H '03 rolls around they will have it ready for production. The main question, to me, is whether it'll appear across the line immediately or just start in the PowerMac line (at the current price points). I'm guessing it'll lead in the PowerMacs for 6-9 months before leaking into the high end of the consumer machines, unless Motorola really does roll over and play dead.
<strong>Several has entertained the notion that as the 970 is a high performance CPU it has to be a high cost CPU as well. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This reminds me of another point. IBM could have designed a workstation chip, but they didn't. They didn't build a chip with ~1000 SPECmarks because that's the fastest thing they could build, they built this particular chip because they decided it was a good balance between cost, power consumption, and performance. What would the point of building such a balanced chip be if its cost was bloated by the system around the chip? IBM's design analysis extended beyond the chip's boundaries to include the system required to support it, especially since they wanted Apple to use it as well. If it was only going to go into expensive workstations they'd have thrown 100+ million transistors at it and really gone for the jugular.
<strong>
I don't agree with the original quote's reasoning. What is it about the support chip that will force the already upscale PowerMac further upwards? Apple has significantly increased the complexity of its support chips in the past and yet the PowerMacs (and high end Macs before that) have always hovered around the same price points. PC makers use chipsets of similar complexity for the PentiumIV at lower price points. This particular chipset may require shouldering an R&D burden (or sharing it with IBM, at least), or may eat into Apple's margins for a while... but that's why Apple has substantial margins. It used to be that a 64-bit wide 167 MHz bus was "out there", but guess what's under my desk now? This bus is synchronous paired unidirectional 32-bits wide channels @ 450 MHz w/ DDR, which is an interesting mix of simple and complex elements. I'm pretty sure that it was designed specifically to have low-cost fast implementations, just like HyperTransport is. I'm also pretty sure that Apple has had at least a year to design a support chip, and that by the time 2H '03 rolls around they will have it ready for production. The main question, to me, is whether it'll appear across the line immediately or just start in the PowerMac line (at the current price points). I'm guessing it'll lead in the PowerMacs for 6-9 months before leaking into the high end of the consumer machines, unless Motorola really does roll over and play dead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that Apple has had enough time to at least have significant time to have a preliminary support chip but it would have had to be with much help with IBM. In fact i would not be the least surprised if this chip would not only be partially designed by IBM, but also fabricated and sold under the IBM name. IBM would also have exclusive rights to ship it with their own systems.
Concerning the prize of the Mobo, i don't think that the new mobo will cost a fortune. When i see the specs of the latest products of the X86 world and see their prize , i came to the conclusion that the performance prize ratio is better and better.
For example an asus A7V7X can support DDR memory (from pc 2100 to PC 3200) serial ATA, ethernet, USB 2, firewire, internal audio 6 channel, ata 133 and raid and AGP 8 X for 185 euros (perhaps a little less in $).
I doubt that an Apple mobo will cost more than 300 $.
<strong>
I agree that Apple has had enough time to at least have significant time to have a preliminary support chip but it would have had to be with much help with IBM. In fact i would not be the least surprised if this chip would not only be partially designed by IBM, but also fabricated and sold under the IBM name. IBM would also have exclusive rights to ship it with their own systems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel supplies chipsets to go with their processors, no reason that IBM couldn't do the same. More likely, however, is that IBM & Apple would collaborate -- IBM could provide the bus interface "modules" which Apple would integrate onto their core chipset in place of the MPX interface. Then again, don't under estimate Apple's chipset design abilities, as far as we know they have a pretty solid team onsite.
If Motorola really are letting IBM to the Apple market, it would make sense that the 970...could...in time, be pervasive through Apple's whole line. Especially with the subsequent .9 die shrink. A million of anthing a quarter is no small amount of money.
Apple and Moto relations seem strained to me. Knowing Steve Jobs from what I've managed to garner...I don't think he could tolerate their level of 'competance'. Moto' may grace the consumer lines 2nd half this year/next year before the door hits them on the way out. But a .13 or .9 G4 would keep the consumer line happy for the next year-ish.
Seems to make sense that an IBM or Apple chipset or joint mobo venture would accompany the co-operation on the 970 front.
If Apple offered the business of Powermacs, Powerbooks and potentially iMac and iBook sales in due course in front of their nose as a carrot...then I'm sure IBM could include Altivec for a major customer. Everything I've read about the way IBM designs chips ala Power4 suggests they'd come round to the idea of VMX eventually. It's a tech' they could use in the embedded markets as Moto' does. So, if VMX doesn't fit for IBM re: 970, it's benefits may extend to other chips for IBM.
The way I see it. Most of the R&D is done via Power 4 and future Power5 chips. It's merely repackaging for a company as big as IBM. Hardly hard work to include VMX and Mobo designs for not only Apple but for your own markets as well.
Yeesh. X86 mobo makers spit out Motherboards left, right and centre. Why is there this question mark over Apple or even IBM? Two substantial companies in their own right.
If we view the IBM/APPLE collaboration as a real long term project, I see no reason why the partnership couldn't go from strength to strength. IBM gives Apple a definite cpu road map and in turn, Apple can offset the R&D. Back scratching.
Unix, PPC, Desktop, Gaming, Multimedia, the Internet, low end server. They have much in common.
And there's no way I see 970 being used in uberworkstations. It's pretty obvious it's a desktop chip...that will be competitive with whatever is in the x86 desktop market this time next year. Especially if you extrapolate the spec scores.
At which, the x86 might 'eek' ahead. But then, this 'platform' neutral bench indicates a G4 is ten times slower than intel's current? If anything, if the G4 is in the 'ball park' with current performance than I think the 970 will have the edge in 'real world' performance. But we'll have to wait and see for that. But hey, a PPC chip that has 'level playing field' spec scores? That's a feat in itself! And any chip that will have four times the performance of a G4 at its debut speed sounds okay to me. Got cash? I'm saving mine.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
PS. A headline/link/source on Macrumors:
"RealWorldTech posts some detailed notes from IBM's presentation last week. Here are some hilights:
- the SIMD unit is AltiVec compatible
- PowerPC 970 has already "taped out", parts exist in labs, undergoing performance eval and debugging
- Second half of 2003 is when volume production is expected
- if Apple adopts the 970, 32-bit applications can run seamlessly, after OS modifications are made
- due to the subsystem support required for the chip, "Unless Apple can also obtain a low cost support chip from IBM, the PowerPC 970 processor would likely force the Apple Macintosh product lines to become even more upscale".
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
800MHz DDR bus (400MHz x 2)
-----------------------
400 x 3 = 1200MHz
400 x 3.5 = 1400MHz
400 x 4 = 1600MHz
900MHz DDR bus (450MHz x 2)
-----------------------
450 x 4 = 1800MHz
450 x 4.5 = 2025MHz
450 x 5 = 2250MHz
450 x 5.5 = 2475MHz
The ones in bold are the only ones we know for sure. They were the only speeds directly quoted by IBM. The other speeds are extrapolated.
<strong>
1. i thought the VMX unit on the 970 is divided into two seperate working units which work on the same instructions but split them up before processing (data handling, instruction processing or s.th.) however - i'm no expert on this but i think this is the way the G4/7400 managed altivec-processing too.... so these TWO altivec units are nothing more than ONE altivec unit...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The two AltiVec units are seperate execution units in the same way as the G4 has 3 integer units, a branch unit, a condition unit, a floating point unit, and a couple of vector units. Each of these handles some of the instructions. I don't know if the 970 divides its vector instructions into math & permute, or some other way... but there are two units which appear as the one "logical" view of the VMX unit.
[ 10-21-2002: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>
<strong>I hope the PPC970 is like the P4: starts out slower, but quickly overtakes the competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like to think of it as the PowerPC 601 - it started out a little slower, but then went on to completely kick Intel's ass with the 604, 604e, and G3.
I think that sounds about right for the then Powermac range.
A 1.4 low end may not sound that much but its offering the equivalent of a 2.8 gig G4, not to mention all the other goodies then...it'd be a nice 'low end' PowerMac.
One question, is the reason why the G4 performed so badly in the Spec marks because each major cpu manufacturer have to submit compilers to run the Spec tests and that Moto have done a lousy job of writing them? Yes, I'm critical of the G4's performance, due, in part, to the way Moto' has clearly mismanaged its development but there's no way the current x86 chips have the lead over the G4 that current Spec scores indicate...as real world performance would indicate otherwise.
If this is the case, surely IBM, of all people, would do a much better job? And therefore, don't the Spec' marks have room to grow if we take this into the 'Spec' equation?
With samples in Quarter 2 2003, it looks like a volume ramp for 2nd half 2003 which leaves a post Macworld New York shipping date?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
One question, is the reason why the G4 performed so badly in the Spec marks because each major cpu manufacturer have to submit compilers to run the Spec tests and that Moto have done a lousy job of writing them? Yes, I'm critical of the G4's performance, due, in part, to the way Moto' has clearly mismanaged its development but there's no way the current x86 chips have the lead over the G4 that current Spec scores indicate...as real world performance would indicate otherwise.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the Motorola compilers are actually pretty good. AFAIK, SPEC runs on very large blocks of data with poor cache coherency and this hurts the G4 worse than most other chips because of its relatively slow MPX bus. If the benchmarks emphasized a heavily used working set of 1 MB then the G4 would, I'm sure, stack up much better.
BTW: I noticed that the 970's VMX unit isn't exactly compatible with the AltiVec unit... the difference is that is supports up to 8 hardware prefetch streams instead of the 4 supported by AltiVec. A subtle difference, and one that the application software won't really notice (although the OS code could take advantage of it a little). I wonder if there are other differences...?