[quote]All the SPEC stuff on the Power4 is with a SINGLE CORE version of the Power4. Most people forget to mention that and/or don't realize that.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. This chip is going to put Apple at the top of the desktop tree. It is the start of a new family of chips, IMB have said so, and not only will it scale n terms of Mhz but it will also move to 0.09 later on. I would also expect dual core versions to appear at a later date, although how altivec works with dual core I am not sure.
This is the best new we could have hoped for. A real future and a partnership with IBM, IBM couldn't give a dam about Windows, and now they have a direct interest in the sucess of a different platform.
Second, Apple may introduce the new PowerMacs with two low-end G4 models, and two high-end G5 (IBM 970) models. The highest model may be a new workstation class PowerMac. In this way, those who do not need the highest performance will buy one of the low-end G4 models and keep up sales. Those who wish the G5 will wait, as others did for the 1.25 GHz models.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This occurred to me. Perhaps the 970 will make its debut in Xserve or a new workstation class PowerMac. I guess it could take years for it to trickle down to the mid range and low end PowerMacs, yet alone the consumer machines.
" The figures for the 1-way, single core Power4 is for the IBM eServer pSeries 630, the latest Power4 based system and the first to be available in 1-way (one processor core) and 2-way (2 processor cores) configurations. The pSeries 630 offers the strongest direct comparison between an HP Itanium 2-based server or workstation and a similar system equipped with IBM Power4 processors. IBM's SPEC results were submitted for a single core."
IBM's SPEC results were submitted for a single core.
An even better quote at the bottom of that page... That goes along with my speculation that a single core GPUL **COULD** out run (err out SPEC) a single core Power4 processor and not hurt IBMs sales.
"The IBM figures for the 1.3GHz Power4 are for a uni-processor IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo running AIX 5L V5.1 with 128MB of L3 cache and 64GB of RAM running AIX 5L V5.1 ? a configuration that no one would purchase in practice. It is benchmark-friendly but impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration."
So to re-word things... The SPEC numbers you see on the Power4 are from a single core Power4 and while it is benchmark-friendly it's impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration. The Power4 is usually configured with DUAL or QUAD cores.
although i belive they will, wouldn't it be funny if apple didn't use this chip at all...a thread for nothing (not that its never happened before)
...getting back on track though I just want to through in the fact that apple said as of jan '03 no macs will be running OS 9 right? did we ever figure out why? hardware woudl support it unless they...for some reason update firmware and pull support of it.
I know this is WAY to optimistic and it won't happen bout who here would love if THIS CHIP is the reason for no more 9? I would love to buy a new apple comp with the profits made from their rising fromhis new machine (i'm 16 and poor ass poor, apple stock rises i have money)
This occurred to me. Perhaps the 970 will make its debut in Xserve or a new workstation class PowerMac. I guess it could take years for it to trickle down to the mid range and low end PowerMacs, yet alone the consumer machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not as pessimistic. If Apple does have the G4 in the lower end PowerMacs, I believe it will be short lived. The G4 would be for immediate sales, while there is a longer wait for the 970 model PowerMacs. Also, the supply of IBM 970 chips may be limited initially. This is just one possible option in any case.
<strong>All the SPEC stuff on the Power4 is with a SINGLE CORE version of the Power4. Most people forget to mention that and/or don't realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but...
Sorry to piss on the barbecue guys, but in those SPEC benchmarks the POWER4 uses all of the L3 cache in all of the processor modules, making it 32 MB. And the latest Pentium 4 can beat it on integers (or was it FPU? can't really remember which one)...
Personally I think this is too little and way too late, although I'd like to be proven wrong...
I am not as pessimistic. If Apple does have the G4 in the lower end PowerMacs, I believe it will be short lived. The G4 would be for immediate sales, while there is a longer wait for the 970 model PowerMacs. Also, the supply of IBM 970 chips may be limited initially. This is just one possible option in any case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sure hope you're right!
I'm not sure what to make of the following quote:
Chekib Akrout, vice president of microprocessor development at IBM Microelectronics, said the PowerPC 970 will have plenty of application now in low-end servers and will have uses in high-end desktops in the future.
Perhaps he has no more knowledge of Apple's intentions than we do, or was talking about IBM's intentions.
Sorry to piss on the barbecue guys, but in those SPEC benchmarks the POWER4 uses all of the L3 cache in all of the processor modules, making it 32 MB. And the latest Pentium 4 can beat it on integers (or was it FPU? can't really remember which one)...
Personally I think this is too little and way too late, although I'd like to be proven wrong...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay...
So a Power4 running at 1.3Ghz is FINALLY being being beat by a brand new P4 on ONE of the SPEC scores. Ummm exactly how fast does that P4 have to go to 'just' beat the numbers? 2.8Ghz.
Hmm
a 2.8Ghz P4 can finally beat a 1.3Ghz Power4 that has one (or 3) cores tied behind it's back! Well whoop-d-do we should buy Intel a milkshake!!
The config used in those oft quoted SPEC results ARE A SINGLE CORE Power4 a config that even HP says isn't a likely shipping config due to the cost of the rest of the box. (see my quotes above)
Now we have the PPC970 that is based on the Power4 and is running @ 1.8Ghz single core ONLY. I don't know the numbers but I have a feeling this new CPU could very well pass the SPEC numbers on the IBM Power4 and at the same time NOT hurt the sales of IBM big iron since after all a single core Power4 isn't a realistic system to sell anyway.
[quote]So to re-word things... The SPEC numbers you see on the Power4 are from a single core Power4 and while it is benchmark-friendly it's impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration. The Power4 is usually configured with DUAL or QUAD cores.<hr></blockquote>
The pSeries 690 isn't noted as having a single core; only the 630. How I read it is that a regular Itanium configuration beats a 'rigged' Power4 in floating point and integer calculations. The single-core Power4 at 1 GHz competes with a 2.5 GHz Pentium 4 in FPU but is upstaged in integer operations. In addition, the Power4 still has a huge L3 cache.
For the PowerPC 970, you can multiply the clockspeed of the single core Power4 by 1.8, take away most of its L3 cache, and add AltiVec. For next year's Pentium 4, you can multiply the clockspeed by about 1.8, keep the cache, and add 'HyperThreading'. Without any real knowledge of processors or any real specifics on the PowerPC 970, it looks to me like it will allow Apple to catch up to Intel (assuming that SPEC benchmarks are relevant, which they probably aren't).
If this chip isn't comming until the second half of 2003. Why were the PM's updated with the odd DDR mod. Clearly the 970 will need a new logic board and will support DDR properly, and what is going to happen in January to make new machines OS X only?
A lot of the current promotions expire on the 31st December?
Are we going to get say a 1.4 G4++ that supports DDR properly and then another new machine later in the year.
How much are Apple going to charge for the Power4 Lite 970 machine?
This announcement raises more questions than it answers.
The bit that caught my eye in the Wired article is that the thing can address 4 terabytes of memory! Man, that's a whole lotta DIMM slots... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
This all plays together very, very nicely indeed: IBM has for a while been interested in getting out of M$'s bed (PC-DOS still rankles, huh?) and has been making noises about getting into the Linux market. Which basically means the *nix market, including our own dear Aquafied OS.
So, we have Big Blue and Apple hand-in-hand on one side of the fence, dragging the open-source community along with them while M$ spend their time tidying up their legacy code and plugging their legions of security holes.
<strong>So, we have Big Blue and Apple hand-in-hand on one side of the fence, dragging the open-source community along with them while M$ spend their time tidying up their legacy code and plugging their legions of security holes.
Exciting times, my friends. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
Where does it say this?
<strong>Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. This chip is going to put Apple at the top of the desktop tree. It is the start of a new family of chips, IMB have said so, and not only will it scale n terms of Mhz but it will also move to 0.09 later on. I would also expect dual core versions to appear at a later date, although how altivec works with dual core I am not sure.
This is the best new we could have hoped for. A real future and a partnership with IBM, IBM couldn't give a dam about Windows, and now they have a direct interest in the sucess of a different platform.
<strong>
Second, Apple may introduce the new PowerMacs with two low-end G4 models, and two high-end G5 (IBM 970) models. The highest model may be a new workstation class PowerMac. In this way, those who do not need the highest performance will buy one of the low-end G4 models and keep up sales. Those who wish the G5 will wait, as others did for the 1.25 GHz models.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This occurred to me. Perhaps the 970 will make its debut in Xserve or a new workstation class PowerMac. I guess it could take years for it to trickle down to the mid range and low end PowerMacs, yet alone the consumer machines.
<strong>
Where does it say this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
" The figures for the 1-way, single core Power4 is for the IBM eServer pSeries 630, the latest Power4 based system and the first to be available in 1-way (one processor core) and 2-way (2 processor cores) configurations. The pSeries 630 offers the strongest direct comparison between an HP Itanium 2-based server or workstation and a similar system equipped with IBM Power4 processors. IBM's SPEC results were submitted for a single core."
IBM's SPEC results were submitted for a single core.
<a href="http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/architecture/speccpu.html"; target="_blank">http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/performance/architecture/speccpu.html</a>;
An even better quote at the bottom of that page... That goes along with my speculation that a single core GPUL **COULD** out run (err out SPEC) a single core Power4 processor and not hurt IBMs sales.
"The IBM figures for the 1.3GHz Power4 are for a uni-processor IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo running AIX 5L V5.1 with 128MB of L3 cache and 64GB of RAM running AIX 5L V5.1 ? a configuration that no one would purchase in practice. It is benchmark-friendly but impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration."
So to re-word things... The SPEC numbers you see on the Power4 are from a single core Power4 and while it is benchmark-friendly it's impractically expensive for a uni-processor configuration. The Power4 is usually configured with DUAL or QUAD cores.
Dave
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>Anybody else disappointed this chip isn't dual-cored?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was, until I read it was fully capable.
We could see quad or octo Macs
...getting back on track though I just want to through in the fact that apple said as of jan '03 no macs will be running OS 9 right? did we ever figure out why? hardware woudl support it unless they...for some reason update firmware and pull support of it.
I know this is WAY to optimistic and it won't happen bout who here would love if THIS CHIP is the reason for no more 9? I would love to buy a new apple comp with the profits made from their rising fromhis new machine (i'm 16 and poor ass poor, apple stock rises i have money)
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/10/14/financial0309EDT0011.DTL"; target="_blank">[/URL] Gate confirms Apple as buyer of the PPC970.</a>
(I know, most of us here are saying, "Duh!")
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: mrmister ]
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: mrmister ]</p>
-The Devil
<strong>
This occurred to me. Perhaps the 970 will make its debut in Xserve or a new workstation class PowerMac. I guess it could take years for it to trickle down to the mid range and low end PowerMacs, yet alone the consumer machines.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not as pessimistic. If Apple does have the G4 in the lower end PowerMacs, I believe it will be short lived. The G4 would be for immediate sales, while there is a longer wait for the 970 model PowerMacs. Also, the supply of IBM 970 chips may be limited initially. This is just one possible option in any case.
<strong>All the SPEC stuff on the Power4 is with a SINGLE CORE version of the Power4. Most people forget to mention that and/or don't realize that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but...
Sorry to piss on the barbecue guys, but in those SPEC benchmarks the POWER4 uses all of the L3 cache in all of the processor modules, making it 32 MB. And the latest Pentium 4 can beat it on integers (or was it FPU? can't really remember which one)...
Personally I think this is too little and way too late, although I'd like to be proven wrong...
ZoSo
<strong>What if this processor isnt even for macs?
-The Devil</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah they may even be for Dell's! Seriously, except for IBM, who else would even be interested? It's definitely not an embedded processor.
edit: How could i forget! Maybe it's for the new Amiga!
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
<strong>
I am not as pessimistic. If Apple does have the G4 in the lower end PowerMacs, I believe it will be short lived. The G4 would be for immediate sales, while there is a longer wait for the 970 model PowerMacs. Also, the supply of IBM 970 chips may be limited initially. This is just one possible option in any case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sure hope you're right!
I'm not sure what to make of the following quote:
Chekib Akrout, vice president of microprocessor development at IBM Microelectronics, said the PowerPC 970 will have plenty of application now in low-end servers and will have uses in high-end desktops in the future.
Perhaps he has no more knowledge of Apple's intentions than we do, or was talking about IBM's intentions.
<strong>
True, but...
Sorry to piss on the barbecue guys, but in those SPEC benchmarks the POWER4 uses all of the L3 cache in all of the processor modules, making it 32 MB. And the latest Pentium 4 can beat it on integers (or was it FPU? can't really remember which one)...
Personally I think this is too little and way too late, although I'd like to be proven wrong...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay...
So a Power4 running at 1.3Ghz is FINALLY being being beat by a brand new P4 on ONE of the SPEC scores. Ummm exactly how fast does that P4 have to go to 'just' beat the numbers? 2.8Ghz.
Hmm
a 2.8Ghz P4 can finally beat a 1.3Ghz Power4 that has one (or 3) cores tied behind it's back! Well whoop-d-do we should buy Intel a milkshake!!
The config used in those oft quoted SPEC results ARE A SINGLE CORE Power4 a config that even HP says isn't a likely shipping config due to the cost of the rest of the box. (see my quotes above)
Now we have the PPC970 that is based on the Power4 and is running @ 1.8Ghz single core ONLY. I don't know the numbers but I have a feeling this new CPU could very well pass the SPEC numbers on the IBM Power4 and at the same time NOT hurt the sales of IBM big iron since after all a single core Power4 isn't a realistic system to sell anyway.
Dave
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
The pSeries 690 isn't noted as having a single core; only the 630. How I read it is that a regular Itanium configuration beats a 'rigged' Power4 in floating point and integer calculations. The single-core Power4 at 1 GHz competes with a 2.5 GHz Pentium 4 in FPU but is upstaged in integer operations. In addition, the Power4 still has a huge L3 cache.
For the PowerPC 970, you can multiply the clockspeed of the single core Power4 by 1.8, take away most of its L3 cache, and add AltiVec. For next year's Pentium 4, you can multiply the clockspeed by about 1.8, keep the cache, and add 'HyperThreading'. Without any real knowledge of processors or any real specifics on the PowerPC 970, it looks to me like it will allow Apple to catch up to Intel (assuming that SPEC benchmarks are relevant, which they probably aren't).
We need real world performance data!!
<strong>We need real world performance data!!
I hope we get that tomorrow... Everything today has been nice but just a tad lite in substance. 24 hours.. 24 hours...
Dave
A lot of the current promotions expire on the 31st December?
Are we going to get say a 1.4 G4++ that supports DDR properly and then another new machine later in the year.
How much are Apple going to charge for the Power4 Lite 970 machine?
This announcement raises more questions than it answers.
[ 10-14-2002: Message edited by: Addison ]</p>
So.. question. Is this the light at the end of the tunnel? Can I start drinking?
This all plays together very, very nicely indeed: IBM has for a while been interested in getting out of M$'s bed (PC-DOS still rankles, huh?) and has been making noises about getting into the Linux market. Which basically means the *nix market, including our own dear Aquafied OS.
So, we have Big Blue and Apple hand-in-hand on one side of the fence, dragging the open-source community along with them while M$ spend their time tidying up their legacy code and plugging their legions of security holes.
Exciting times, my friends.
<strong>So, we have Big Blue and Apple hand-in-hand on one side of the fence, dragging the open-source community along with them while M$ spend their time tidying up their legacy code and plugging their legions of security holes.
Exciting times, my friends.
I couldn't have said it any better.