eWeek article on Smeagol and Q37

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121740,00.asp



Quote:

Apple Computer Inc. is nearing the release of desktop systems featuring IBM's 64-bit PowerPC 970 chip, sources report?but a 64-bit version of Mac OS X may lag behind by a month or two.



Sources said that the IBM chip will make its first appearance in a new Power Mac known internally as Q37. However, sources said, Q37 won't ship with a 64-bit version of Mac OS X, limiting OS performance gains in the initial release. Instead, Q37 will launch with a special build train of the current Mac OS X Version 10.2, a k a Jaguar.



This build, code-named Smeagol, will run on the new chip but won't take advantage of many of its key features, including 64-bit support. Sources said Apple's goal for Smeagol is to deliver Mac OS X performance at least "on par" with what Jaguar could achieve on Motorola G4 chips running at the same speed; the move will allow Apple to ship the new hardware before Mac OS X 10.3, a k a Panther, can take advantage of all the new processor's capabilities.



Not very promising, at least the part about the PPC 970's OS X performance being on par with the G4. I had thought that a 970 was estimated to be about twice as fast as a similarly clocked G4. Could lack of 64 bit optimizations (and whatever other optimizations are needed) cut the 970's performance in half? Doesn't seem likely. If this article is true, then the 970 won't be the stellar leap in performance we've been anticipating, rather it will be no more than the performance from a 1.8 GHz G4 if Moto could scale it that high. A nice boost to be sure, but nothing that will put Apple in direct competition with Wintels.
«13456721

Comments

  • Reply 2 of 401
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    I didn't catch those posts. Anyways, this needs it's own thread, since it's a new rumor of considerable validity. Maybe you could add something constructive besides posting links to other references to the article?
  • Reply 3 of 401
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    sigh... Q37? have the engineering boys lost all flair for naming these rigs anymore?



    sorry. petty comment on my part.
  • Reply 4 of 401
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    I like it. its so "the answer is was so right in front of you the whole time"
  • Reply 5 of 401
    marcusmarcus Posts: 227member
    As the 'alleged' time of the 970 approaches, so does my previous happy anticipation...



    I just bought a 867 PB 12", which I am impressed with, but only because I expected 'nothing' in advance with the 970 around the corner and all...



    Rather than revising my estimates of the 'Uber' Mac upwards, I'm just hoping Apple doesn't feck this up... On a par with a G4? The bad publicity could sink the ship before it sails!!



    Rather than release a disasterously 'crippled' machine (In PR terms), wait a further 2 months. We have waited 2 years already, so what does it matter?



    Vorsprung durch Technik ? Hmmm. I guess time will tell



    Peace,



    Marc



    Note to self: Repeat at least 1000 times a day: Apple will not mess this up, Apple willl not m....
  • Reply 6 of 401
    & why cant we access this thread anymore on the same subject?



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=25673



  • Reply 7 of 401
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    as others have pointed too,



    ibm production != moto production
  • Reply 8 of 401
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch

    & why cant we access this thread anymore on the same subject?



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=25673







    Listen, I'd rather go to ONE PLACE to get in on discussion about this development. I don't feel like jumping around several different threads trying to follow discussion on this article.



    Mainly, I'd like to know why it's predicting such poor performance for the 970, relative to all the other rumors. There's probably some fellows here at AI who could shed some light on this issue...and it'd be nice to see them all discussing the reasons in ONE place.
  • Reply 9 of 401
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    Listen, I'd rather go to ONE PLACE to get in on discussion about this development. I don't feel like jumping around several different threads trying to follow discussion on this article.



    Cool it - he was asking why the thread about Smeagol from yesterday was gone - it was deleted earlier today.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    Mainly, I'd like to know why it's predicting such poor performance for the 970, relative to all the other rumors. There's probably some fellows here at AI who could shed some light on this issue...and it'd be nice to see them all discussing the reasons in ONE place.



    A lot of light have been shed in the two threads I linked to
  • Reply 10 of 401
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    I didn't catch those posts. Anyways, this needs it's own thread, since it's a new rumor of considerable validity. Maybe you could add something constructive besides posting links to other references to the article?



    It doesn't need its own thread.
  • Reply 11 of 401
    ti fighterti fighter Posts: 863member
    i think its kinda funny all the time we waste on arguing a threads validity. It doesn't bother me i just think its kinda funny to read. I shouldn't complain, it's so much better here in general that most forums.
  • Reply 12 of 401
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    quote

    "This build, code-named Smeagol, will run on the new chip but won't take advantage of many of its key features, including 64-bit support. Sources said Apple's goal for Smeagol is to deliver Mac OS X performance at least "on par" with what Jaguar could achieve on Motorola G4 chips running at the same speed; the move will allow Apple to ship the new hardware before Mac OS X 10.3, a k a Panther, can take advantage of all the new processor's capabilities."







    perhaps apple is learning from ibm and is "sandbagging" it..notice "at least"...perhaps it is twice as fast, three times as fast, only just as fast...i don't know, the writers don't know...everyone will know in 2 weeks



    by all indications the 970 will be a great chip, but more importantly, everything around it will be better too...pipeline, rapidio or hyperactive child drive etc





    g
  • Reply 13 of 401
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    upside: more independent sources may mean the info is closer to accuracy



    downside: maybe he just reads /. and from there AI and rehashes rumours



    any regular readers of his column care to comment on his rumour record?



    convergence of message != accuracy,

    but it cuts down on some of the rampant speculation

    perhaps to become the apocryphal "market expectations"



    1.4-1.8 GHz 970s in the first run seem the status quo prediction now.

    IBM has talked about Blade Servers up to 2.5 GHz (maybe Q1'04).



    Apple engineering/OS folks have talked Quads since NeXT guys joined, if not before.



    Some of the more 'experienced' folks in some of the other threads have noted the benefits of a shift towards new backplane/fabric/mobo/fsb concepts as being as critical as the 970 CPU shift itself. some of these upgrades, combined with full 10.3 support for 64-bitness throughout will prepare the bandwidth for more substantial multi-processing.

    AI's own front page is naming a "HyperTransport-based solution" for up to 12.8Gb of bandwidth



    might not see a Quad 970 Xstation (or whatever) til 04, but it'll be doable for the first time since the Daystar.



    there was some discussion of the ApplePi Bus here last year... IIRC, the PDFs that it referenced were pulled. perhaps somebody archved the threads and links and can cross-reference what we knew then with what eWeek is reporting
  • Reply 14 of 401
    shankstashanksta Posts: 96member
    Will the keynote be broadcast to the public? To Developers? or not at all?
  • Reply 15 of 401
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    he's very good. curious.
  • Reply 16 of 401
    jonathanjonathan Posts: 312member
    <neo>



    whoa.



    </neo>





  • Reply 17 of 401
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    ?
  • Reply 18 of 401
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    it will be interesting to see is apple has eWeek pull the article





    g
  • Reply 19 of 401
    marcusmarcus Posts: 227member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thegelding

    it will be interesting to see is apple has eWeek pull the article





    g




    On what gounds?



    I really don't think they can in this instance...
  • Reply 20 of 401
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thegelding

    it will be interesting to see is apple has eWeek pull the article.



    Never happen. If eWeek received such a request, they would run it as a confirmation of their story and tell Steve to take a hike. Apple only bullies small-time sites.
Sign In or Register to comment.