KidRed, Eugene, and Powerdoc are now all spinning the middle of next year. You just gotta love the expectation escalation that goes on here thanks to those members, moderators, etc :
"IBM said its new PowerPC chip would go into production late next year"
Which part of "late next year" do you not understand?
970? That's 9xx. And don't I recall correctly that 8xx and 9xx processors are embedded-only? Has this ever changed? Don't think so. Something's strange about this.
But people, would you please stop thinking that Megahertz equals performances <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Intel will go ahead and launch the p5 at the same time or soon after if not before. I really have no idea but it seems like its inevitable.
so they'll be doing 4ghz by then assuming that in fact intel is having a harder time getting there chips to go faster.
Of course i just read random tidbits of information and don't exactly know if everythign i read is right but thats just what i see from intel coming to smack down the ibm chip even though it appears that it will be superior
This is hopefully the g5 i am expecting and hopefully not unique to the xserve or any possible workstation. I also hope these chips are dirt cheap, but thats just hope.
Remember all the marketing buzz which accompanied the apparition of game consoles with new "8xbits" architectures : it was THE argument to sell them and it became quickly apparent that the path from 8 bits to 16 bits to 32 bits consoles really meant passing from a generation to a new one, with huge improvements each time.
Using the same strategy for Apple could bring a lot of benefits (far more than the inclusion of Altivec as a commercial argument).
What sounds better : the old bud called Pentium 4 at 4 Ghz but still 32 bits or the new comer 64 bits processors at nearly 2 Ghz working by 2 or 4 at a time (on a FW 2 equipped computer using the newest generation of Unix system) ?
I can live with a 1.8 gig Tower that thumps a G4 to the tune of four times faster. A four gig G4 equivalent? And then you've got the bandwidth. An altivec equivalent that will be running at faster mhz.
Sounds like a chip to shatter the mhz myth.
You only have to look at the Power 4 at 1.3 to see that a GPUL at 1.8 with altivec is going to do very nicely indeed.
The 'hammer' is only running at 800mhz according to certain websites. AMD will do an 'XP' rating thing of about 3400 by the sounds of things.
Intel 'may' have a 4 gig P4. So?
At least a gig of that 4 gig will be inefficient fluff.
What's it got? 1 op per cycle?
The GPUL will have 8 (five actual?) instructions, out of order, 2 fpu, altivec etc which means higher than 1 instruction per cycle.
X86 opposition's 64 bit consumer desktops are nowhere to be seen for the first half of 2003. When they do turn up, the GPUL will be there to greet them with higher mhz (it must be noted...) for what its worth (not very much.)
In short, the GPUL will be at least competitive with anything x86 has at the time and Mac users who've struggled with G4 revisions will feel like they've got lightspeed with the GPUL.
I sure as hell can't wait to unpack the box and start Lightwave benching!
My optimistic side says a GPUL at 1.8 is going to really take out a 4 gig Pentium 4 in a fight.
After the dismal run of G4 huff and puff revisions, I'll take the GPUL, running at 1.8 (at least?) on the 6.4 gig bandwidth. And I'll pony up the money and like it. Something I couldn't say of the '2 for 1' and still not worth it G4.
Apple may not comment on this chip. We may see a 'fair' .13 G4 with on board controller in the meantime...but I think it's reasonable to assume we'll have a GPUL announcement at Macworld New York. Fingers crossed.
The benefits to the Mac platform are massive. Apple gets a 'big business' partner with their head glued on. That may help alot for Apple's X-serve's strat'. IBM is the biggest computer company in the world (or there abouts...) and that's going to give Apple more credibility in the press and general than Motorola, a company...kinda drowning right now..., a strong long term partner for Apple, a definite road map for the future as Power 4 and Power 5 revisions come on stream...and IBM are in the consumer space with developing multimedia chips for Sony et al. A good, all round partner with cpus to allow Apple compete in desktop, embedded arenas.
What's more, I'm looking forward to Apple dusting off those old fried snail ads...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS.
"Using the same strategy for Apple could bring a lot of benefits (far more than the inclusion of Altivec as a commercial argument).
What sounds better : the old bud called Pentium 4 at 4 Ghz but still 32 bits or the new comer 64 bits processors at nearly 2 Ghz working by 2 or 4 at a time (on a FW 2 equipped computer using the newest generation of Unix system) ?"
There gotta be something to come before the PPC 970 comes out of door
Moto's PPC 7500 at 1.5Ghz top? Maybe.......
[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
We'll see gamboling lambs, spring blossom, lacklustre stop-gap Powermacs and some very bad earning from Apple.
This release is great news, but unless Apple make the Feb'03 PM ditch the MPX and give some real perfomance enhancements, their PM sales will be truly dire. People are holding off buying new machines ... in edit suites, repro, music studios etc ...
I really hope they bring in some well-needed cash with some margin-friendly new digital devices to tide them over for the next 12 months ...
One thing to note that may make you feel even better...
I can't currently find the source for this, but as soon as I do I'll post it, but, Windows XP and 2000 have reportedly been unable to run on processors of 2.8ghz and upward. This is do to some poor legacy code in the kernel. Apparently running WinXp/2k on these faster chips means instructions are returned to the kernel before it has completed the execute cycle. This has not been fixed in XP's SP1 release and won't be fixed for at least 12 months probably not till the next major OS update.
HOWEVER a certain Unix based OS has no problem scaling as high as you like due to the well written kernel code....
Fact is, none of this information can be verified by IBM until IBM actually releases it. For all we know this can be speculation and reports of inside 'sources'...
[quote]Posted by G4Dude: I mean by that time Intel will be at 5+ Ghz <hr></blockquote>
Well not really. By then, both Intel and AMD will have moved onto their next generation procs, both slated to intro at around 1.6-1.8ghz, and around the same time. Far leaner design, less pipeline stages and the like.
That is why AMD is now jumping around trying to dispell the Mhz myth that it has been living off for the past 3 years!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
It seems that if Apple does adopt this chip promptly, they will be right back in the fray once more!!! YEAH BABY!!!!
<strong>Fact is, none of this information can be verified by IBM until IBM actually releases it. For all we know this can be speculation and reports of inside 'sources'...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am praying very hard that the information is true. I will be starting work in July next year. hopefully I can afford one of these 1.8ghz machines!!
More importantly (I think), how quickly can it scale to two or more cores? I think two cores are better than two chips, even if the two processor system is running on highly efficient busses. Of course, two chips with a nice bus architecture are better than a one core chip....</strong><hr></blockquote>
From a marketing perspective, two single core chips may be better than one dual core chip. Most members of the public can understand the benefits of multiple processors, multiple cores may be lost on them.
Apple knows the effect this announcement will have on sales of their current PM's, devistating. They will want to have this processor shipping as close to this announcement as possible. I think one analyst predicted a tough time for Apple in 2003 and that has reflected in the share price. Apple will do well to remain in the black until this chip is shipping, which could explain the spat of recent job cuts.
I think we all know that this chip will make or break Apple, it is vital for their future. I just hope that it lives up to our expactations and I look forward to seeing the rendering benchmarks in due course.
How about an Xraid rendering farm with thses fitted.
Comments
"IBM said its new PowerPC chip would go into production late next year"
Which part of "late next year" do you not understand?
Jet
But people, would you please stop thinking that Megahertz equals performances <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
PowerPC 6xx's were desktop CPUs
PowerPC 7xx's and 7xxx's are high-end embedded CPUs.
PowerPC 8xx's and 8xxx's are communication CPUs.
This 9xx series starts where the 6xx ended (with the PowerPC 630 - Power3).
Barto
Intel will go ahead and launch the p5 at the same time or soon after if not before. I really have no idea but it seems like its inevitable.
so they'll be doing 4ghz by then assuming that in fact intel is having a harder time getting there chips to go faster.
Of course i just read random tidbits of information and don't exactly know if everythign i read is right but thats just what i see from intel coming to smack down the ibm chip even though it appears that it will be superior
This is hopefully the g5 i am expecting and hopefully not unique to the xserve or any possible workstation. I also hope these chips are dirt cheap, but thats just hope.
Using the same strategy for Apple could bring a lot of benefits (far more than the inclusion of Altivec as a commercial argument).
What sounds better : the old bud called Pentium 4 at 4 Ghz but still 32 bits or the new comer 64 bits processors at nearly 2 Ghz working by 2 or 4 at a time (on a FW 2 equipped computer using the newest generation of Unix system) ?
I can live with a 1.8 gig Tower that thumps a G4 to the tune of four times faster. A four gig G4 equivalent? And then you've got the bandwidth. An altivec equivalent that will be running at faster mhz.
Sounds like a chip to shatter the mhz myth.
You only have to look at the Power 4 at 1.3 to see that a GPUL at 1.8 with altivec is going to do very nicely indeed.
The 'hammer' is only running at 800mhz according to certain websites. AMD will do an 'XP' rating thing of about 3400 by the sounds of things.
Intel 'may' have a 4 gig P4. So?
At least a gig of that 4 gig will be inefficient fluff.
What's it got? 1 op per cycle?
The GPUL will have 8 (five actual?) instructions, out of order, 2 fpu, altivec etc which means higher than 1 instruction per cycle.
X86 opposition's 64 bit consumer desktops are nowhere to be seen for the first half of 2003. When they do turn up, the GPUL will be there to greet them with higher mhz (it must be noted...) for what its worth (not very much.)
In short, the GPUL will be at least competitive with anything x86 has at the time and Mac users who've struggled with G4 revisions will feel like they've got lightspeed with the GPUL.
I sure as hell can't wait to unpack the box and start Lightwave benching!
My optimistic side says a GPUL at 1.8 is going to really take out a 4 gig Pentium 4 in a fight.
After the dismal run of G4 huff and puff revisions, I'll take the GPUL, running at 1.8 (at least?) on the 6.4 gig bandwidth. And I'll pony up the money and like it. Something I couldn't say of the '2 for 1' and still not worth it G4.
Apple may not comment on this chip. We may see a 'fair' .13 G4 with on board controller in the meantime...but I think it's reasonable to assume we'll have a GPUL announcement at Macworld New York. Fingers crossed.
The benefits to the Mac platform are massive. Apple gets a 'big business' partner with their head glued on. That may help alot for Apple's X-serve's strat'. IBM is the biggest computer company in the world (or there abouts...) and that's going to give Apple more credibility in the press and general than Motorola, a company...kinda drowning right now..., a strong long term partner for Apple, a definite road map for the future as Power 4 and Power 5 revisions come on stream...and IBM are in the consumer space with developing multimedia chips for Sony et al. A good, all round partner with cpus to allow Apple compete in desktop, embedded arenas.
What's more, I'm looking forward to Apple dusting off those old fried snail ads...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS.
"Using the same strategy for Apple could bring a lot of benefits (far more than the inclusion of Altivec as a commercial argument).
What sounds better : the old bud called Pentium 4 at 4 Ghz but still 32 bits or the new comer 64 bits processors at nearly 2 Ghz working by 2 or 4 at a time (on a FW 2 equipped computer using the newest generation of Unix system) ?"
I agree.
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Now the question is:
What we are going to see in Spring 2003?
There gotta be something to come before the PPC 970 comes out of door
Moto's PPC 7500 at 1.5Ghz top? Maybe.......
[ 10-13-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
We'll see gamboling lambs, spring blossom, lacklustre stop-gap Powermacs and some very bad earning from Apple.
This release is great news, but unless Apple make the Feb'03 PM ditch the MPX and give some real perfomance enhancements, their PM sales will be truly dire. People are holding off buying new machines ... in edit suites, repro, music studios etc ...
I really hope they bring in some well-needed cash with some margin-friendly new digital devices to tide them over for the next 12 months ...
fingers x'd!
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: jobes ]
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: jobes ]</p>
I can't currently find the source for this, but as soon as I do I'll post it, but, Windows XP and 2000 have reportedly been unable to run on processors of 2.8ghz and upward. This is do to some poor legacy code in the kernel. Apparently running WinXp/2k on these faster chips means instructions are returned to the kernel before it has completed the execute cycle. This has not been fixed in XP's SP1 release and won't be fixed for at least 12 months probably not till the next major OS update.
HOWEVER a certain Unix based OS has no problem scaling as high as you like due to the well written kernel code....
<strong>We all see the irony that IBM is becoming Apple's savior, don't we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
kinda what i was going for
Well not really. By then, both Intel and AMD will have moved onto their next generation procs, both slated to intro at around 1.6-1.8ghz, and around the same time. Far leaner design, less pipeline stages and the like.
That is why AMD is now jumping around trying to dispell the Mhz myth that it has been living off for the past 3 years!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
It seems that if Apple does adopt this chip promptly, they will be right back in the fray once more!!! YEAH BABY!!!!
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>
<strong>Fact is, none of this information can be verified by IBM until IBM actually releases it. For all we know this can be speculation and reports of inside 'sources'...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am praying very hard that the information is true. I will be starting work in July next year. hopefully I can afford one of these 1.8ghz machines!!
<strong>
More importantly (I think), how quickly can it scale to two or more cores? I think two cores are better than two chips, even if the two processor system is running on highly efficient busses. Of course, two chips with a nice bus architecture are better than a one core chip....</strong><hr></blockquote>
From a marketing perspective, two single core chips may be better than one dual core chip. Most members of the public can understand the benefits of multiple processors, multiple cores may be lost on them.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I think we all know that this chip will make or break Apple, it is vital for their future. I just hope that it lives up to our expactations and I look forward to seeing the rendering benchmarks in due course.
How about an Xraid rendering farm with thses fitted.
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html</a>;
This bodes well in their being a future varient suitable for portables...if true...then there will be no need for moto
------------
Hello Moto <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />