.... single(sic 970) in iMacs and eMacs. Later also in the portable as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember the 970 is a 64 bit chip. The consumer models really have no pressing need for a 64 bit. A 64 bit chip will require more transistors, how many I have no clue. A 64 bit system will in all likelyhood pay some form of speed penalty over a 32 bit system.
I suspect that the consumer models will remain 32 bit for awhile. What that chip is, is anybody's guess - MPC 7457? MPC 7470? MPC 7500? MPC 85XX? or an as yet unannounced version of the IBM 75X. Remember IBM's roadmap clearly indicates a G3? migration to Rapid I/O, Altivec and DDR frontside bus.
That said, Apple may gain some advantage using 64 bit across all lines in manufacturing and software development expenses. But I still believe the consumer models will remain 32 bit for some time.
"we benchmarked the 970 (who knows what they call it) against the fastest Pentium 4, and ours was faster...so we decided to put in two just for the fun of it"
<strong>Remember the 970 is a 64 bit chip. The consumer models really have no pressing need for a 64 bit. A 64 bit chip will require more transistors, how many I have no clue. A 64 bit system will in all likelyhood pay some form of speed penalty over a 32 bit system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I don't agree with this statement. Running 64-bit code will be slightly (very slightly) slower than running 32-bit code, but the 970 is fully capable of running 32-bit code so the processor won't pay this speed penalty.
If you're comparing the 970 to a hypothetical alternative 32-bit 970 design, then there is a small complexity penalty involved in the 64-bit support and this might translate into extra heat or slightly lower yields, or the opportunity cost of not having slightly better internal tables and caches. I think the difference would be extremely small, however. Far less than the speed hit running 64-bit code. Its also very hypothetical because they'll never design a 32-bit version of the 970, so in practice you'll be stuck comparing the 970 to Moto's G4 line and at the moment it looks like the G4 is going to get stomped.
think that the G4 is better then IBM's souped up G3 with altivec or whatever, cuz it would be nice to have G3's in iBooks, iMacs and whatever, and then 970 for pro machines
Programmer's so right. The 970 at 1 gig would stomp the current top duals in its sleep. If Apple go for early release, could they down clock to get better yields and get to market sooner?
Just a thought.
Programmer, just wanted your opinion on 'classic windows' layer being the 'Marklar'...
<strong>....Its also very hypothetical because they'll never design a 32-bit version of the 970,...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you say this? Maybe not a version of the 970, but certainly a 32 bit processor with greater than 7 pipelines, faster interconnects, potentially multicore designs. I think these are already on both Motorola's and IBM's roadmaps.
In the foreseeable future, what it boils down to is, will there be a 32 bit processor built with faster transfer rates and processing power than the current G4/G3's. And that will be cheaper to make and use less power than the 970.
If this is true, does the cost benefit over a 970 justify the aggravation and cost of maintaining 2 processor architectures? I can't answer this question, but I suspect we will soon be finding out.
<strong>Why do you say this? Maybe not a version of the 970, but certainly a 32 bit processor with greater than 7 pipelines, faster interconnects, potentially multicore designs. I think these are already on both Motorola's and IBM's roadmaps.
In the foreseeable future, what it boils down to is, will there be a 32 bit processor built with faster transfer rates and processing power than the current G4/G3's. And that will be cheaper to make and use less power than the 970.
If this is true, does the cost benefit over a 970 justify the aggravation and cost of maintaining 2 processor architectures? I can't answer this question, but I suspect we will soon be finding out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The delta in the number of transistors between a 32-bit 970 and a 64-bit 970 would be very small. Integer registers get wider, a couple of internal buses get wider, and the integer execution units have to handle 64-bit types. The load/store unit needs to understand 64-bit addresses, and the PMMU changes. The majority of transistors are already in the FPU, VPU, caches, decoder, branch unit, and other internal infrastructure. I don't have any hard numbers, but it would likely be something on the order of 50 vs 46 million transistors.
Evidence: the 604 was ~4 million transistors and the 620 was ~7 million transistors. The 620 had improvements in several ways, it wasn't just a 64-bit 604. That means it took less than 2 million transistors to turn a 32-bit PowerPC into a 64-bit PowerPC. The 970 has more execution units and deeper pipelines, but that's not going to dramatically increase the cost (maybe double to ~4 million transistors).
Note that I'm not saying that there won't be other 32-bit PowerPCs, but they won't be a clone of the 970's architecture with the 64-bit support ripped out. That is too small of a delta. More likely there will be larger differences, like between the 750 vs 970 architectures.
Nothing prevents Apple from eventually releasing single, dual and quad processor designs. I think they eventually will fill all three niches.
The best reason for starting with singles is that it will allow Apple to ship twice as many machines while IBM is ramping up.
The best reason for IBM to go with duals is to shatter the public's belief that Apples are slower than PCs. Admins everywhere would drool for 1.8 ghz dual. Apple would seize mindshare, if not marketshare.
Not mentioning the fact it's only been spoken of in singles, don't forget about price. At first everyone thought this would be a $5k desktop and now people are asking about duals? I know it won't be too much out of current pricing, but making them duals I think would be too expensive, at least at first.
<strong>Not mentioning the fact it's only been spoken of in singles, don't forget about price. At first everyone thought this would be a $5k desktop and now people are asking about duals? I know it won't be too much out of current pricing, but making them duals I think would be too expensive, at least at first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I understand the chip should cost less than a G4 to produce, although IBM will tack on a premium. Duals are still almost necessary IMO, if they come in at a price similar to the G4. Developers need more incentive to keep producing applications threaded for dual processor machines, even when we move to multi-core machines.
Well, one thing is for sure... Apple needs *mind-share*. One way Apple can got it is not only to advertise a *new* workstation, but announce a VERY FAST workstation at a price point that's reasonable.. sure *reasonable* is a relative term.. I'm talking relative to TOP performing PC rigs.. Not just some number specs. those boxes carry. No way should Apple release single-processor configs of the 970. I'd actually wait until yields were up. Spend a little more now for a greater potential gain in the future. And if I recall there was an article published on eeTimes(?) that quoted an IBM fellow as stating that the 970 was initially meant to be released in 4-way configs... I say Apple should intro duels and then release quads as yields become better... But this is IBM and IBM is no slouch, therefore I doubt that they will have the yield problems that Moto had.
From what I understand the chip should cost less than a G4 to produce, although IBM will tack on a premium. Duals are still almost necessary IMO, if they come in at a price similar to the G4. Developers need more incentive to keep producing applications threaded for dual processor machines, even when we move to multi-core machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Wow, bring it on then!
[quote] Originally posted by moki:
<strong>Yes, it does, doesn't it. ::cryptic grin:: </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Not mentioning the fact it's only been spoken of in singles, don't forget about price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a picture of a PPC970 next to its progenitor the Power4 on IBM's site. The ppc 970 is substantially smaller - less than half the surface area -> much, much cheaper.
Another huge piece of the Power4's "price" is the robustness (for 100% uptime) and other big-server-only features/testing that the ppc970 shouldn't need.
If IBM were selling the Power4 in the volume we're expecting them to sell the ppc970...
Lots of reasons to expect the ppc970 to be cheaper. And require less expensive support from the computer it is plugged into also.
The single best reason for Apple to stay dual is that a lot of third party software makers (and apple) went to the trouble to code their stuff for dual CPUs. Apple has a core of software that can take full advantage of multiple CPUs. Keeping that is worth making a dual 970.
<strong>Yes, it does, doesn't it. ::cryptic grin::</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gotta love Moki's posts. So does that mean Apple is getting a special version? Or that the 980 will be dual core? Or that the 970 is multi-threaded and nobody mentioned it? Or...
Gotta love Moki's posts. So does that mean Apple is getting a special version? Or that the 980 will be dual core? Or that the 970 is multi-threaded and nobody mentioned it? Or...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's interesting to ponder. IBM said that the POWER 4 isn't multi-threaded and that the 970 core is based on the POWER 4. But i don't remember them sayiing that the 970 won't be multi-threaded capable... We know that the POWER 5 will be multi-threaded caapable so, it's little brother, the 980, should also be.
Comments
<strong>I hope they do both
.... single(sic 970) in iMacs and eMacs. Later also in the portable as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember the 970 is a 64 bit chip. The consumer models really have no pressing need for a 64 bit. A 64 bit chip will require more transistors, how many I have no clue. A 64 bit system will in all likelyhood pay some form of speed penalty over a 32 bit system.
I suspect that the consumer models will remain 32 bit for awhile. What that chip is, is anybody's guess - MPC 7457? MPC 7470? MPC 7500? MPC 85XX? or an as yet unannounced version of the IBM 75X. Remember IBM's roadmap clearly indicates a G3? migration to Rapid I/O, Altivec and DDR frontside bus.
That said, Apple may gain some advantage using 64 bit across all lines in manufacturing and software development expenses. But I still believe the consumer models will remain 32 bit for some time.
"we benchmarked the 970 (who knows what they call it) against the fastest Pentium 4, and ours was faster...so we decided to put in two just for the fun of it"
<strong>Remember the 970 is a 64 bit chip. The consumer models really have no pressing need for a 64 bit. A 64 bit chip will require more transistors, how many I have no clue. A 64 bit system will in all likelyhood pay some form of speed penalty over a 32 bit system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I don't agree with this statement. Running 64-bit code will be slightly (very slightly) slower than running 32-bit code, but the 970 is fully capable of running 32-bit code so the processor won't pay this speed penalty.
If you're comparing the 970 to a hypothetical alternative 32-bit 970 design, then there is a small complexity penalty involved in the 64-bit support and this might translate into extra heat or slightly lower yields, or the opportunity cost of not having slightly better internal tables and caches. I think the difference would be extremely small, however. Far less than the speed hit running 64-bit code. Its also very hypothetical because they'll never design a 32-bit version of the 970, so in practice you'll be stuck comparing the 970 to Moto's G4 line and at the moment it looks like the G4 is going to get stomped.
Just a thought.
Programmer, just wanted your opinion on 'classic windows' layer being the 'Marklar'...
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002880"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002880</a>;
Dual or Single, surely a 970 emulating x86 would give a single Pentium 3 at 1 gig/Pentium 4 at 1.6 gig performance?
'X' seems to be the ultimate cross platform OS at the moment with Unix, Mac and X11 (Beta at the mo'...) and 'Marklar' to come?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>....Its also very hypothetical because they'll never design a 32-bit version of the 970,...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you say this? Maybe not a version of the 970, but certainly a 32 bit processor with greater than 7 pipelines, faster interconnects, potentially multicore designs. I think these are already on both Motorola's and IBM's roadmaps.
In the foreseeable future, what it boils down to is, will there be a 32 bit processor built with faster transfer rates and processing power than the current G4/G3's. And that will be cheaper to make and use less power than the 970.
If this is true, does the cost benefit over a 970 justify the aggravation and cost of maintaining 2 processor architectures? I can't answer this question, but I suspect we will soon be finding out.
<strong>Why do you say this? Maybe not a version of the 970, but certainly a 32 bit processor with greater than 7 pipelines, faster interconnects, potentially multicore designs. I think these are already on both Motorola's and IBM's roadmaps.
In the foreseeable future, what it boils down to is, will there be a 32 bit processor built with faster transfer rates and processing power than the current G4/G3's. And that will be cheaper to make and use less power than the 970.
If this is true, does the cost benefit over a 970 justify the aggravation and cost of maintaining 2 processor architectures? I can't answer this question, but I suspect we will soon be finding out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The delta in the number of transistors between a 32-bit 970 and a 64-bit 970 would be very small. Integer registers get wider, a couple of internal buses get wider, and the integer execution units have to handle 64-bit types. The load/store unit needs to understand 64-bit addresses, and the PMMU changes. The majority of transistors are already in the FPU, VPU, caches, decoder, branch unit, and other internal infrastructure. I don't have any hard numbers, but it would likely be something on the order of 50 vs 46 million transistors.
Evidence: the 604 was ~4 million transistors and the 620 was ~7 million transistors. The 620 had improvements in several ways, it wasn't just a 64-bit 604. That means it took less than 2 million transistors to turn a 32-bit PowerPC into a 64-bit PowerPC. The 970 has more execution units and deeper pipelines, but that's not going to dramatically increase the cost (maybe double to ~4 million transistors).
Note that I'm not saying that there won't be other 32-bit PowerPCs, but they won't be a clone of the 970's architecture with the 64-bit support ripped out. That is too small of a delta. More likely there will be larger differences, like between the 750 vs 970 architectures.
The best reason for starting with singles is that it will allow Apple to ship twice as many machines while IBM is ramping up.
The best reason for IBM to go with duals is to shatter the public's belief that Apples are slower than PCs. Admins everywhere would drool for 1.8 ghz dual. Apple would seize mindshare, if not marketshare.
<strong>Not mentioning the fact it's only been spoken of in singles, don't forget about price. At first everyone thought this would be a $5k desktop and now people are asking about duals? I know it won't be too much out of current pricing, but making them duals I think would be too expensive, at least at first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I understand the chip should cost less than a G4 to produce, although IBM will tack on a premium. Duals are still almost necessary IMO, if they come in at a price similar to the G4. Developers need more incentive to keep producing applications threaded for dual processor machines, even when we move to multi-core machines.
--
Ed M.
<strong>IBM's website say's the PPC 970 will be single core BTW.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it does, doesn't it. ::cryptic grin::
<strong>
::cryptic grin::</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ya bastage!
<strong>
From what I understand the chip should cost less than a G4 to produce, although IBM will tack on a premium. Duals are still almost necessary IMO, if they come in at a price similar to the G4. Developers need more incentive to keep producing applications threaded for dual processor machines, even when we move to multi-core machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Wow, bring it on then!
[quote] Originally posted by moki:
<strong>Yes, it does, doesn't it. ::cryptic grin:: </strong><hr></blockquote>
CONFIRMED- 970 will be dual!!
[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
<strong>Not mentioning the fact it's only been spoken of in singles, don't forget about price.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a picture of a PPC970 next to its progenitor the Power4 on IBM's site. The ppc 970 is substantially smaller - less than half the surface area -> much, much cheaper.
Another huge piece of the Power4's "price" is the robustness (for 100% uptime) and other big-server-only features/testing that the ppc970 shouldn't need.
If IBM were selling the Power4 in the volume we're expecting them to sell the ppc970...
Lots of reasons to expect the ppc970 to be cheaper. And require less expensive support from the computer it is plugged into also.
<strong>Yes, it does, doesn't it. ::cryptic grin::</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gotta love Moki's posts. So does that mean Apple is getting a special version? Or that the 980 will be dual core? Or that the 970 is multi-threaded and nobody mentioned it? Or...
<strong>
Yes, it does, doesn't it. ::cryptic grin::</strong><hr></blockquote>
this sort of response ought to be illegal- a short skirt in a bar at 2:00am is less a tease than Moki.
<strong>
Gotta love Moki's posts. So does that mean Apple is getting a special version? Or that the 980 will be dual core? Or that the 970 is multi-threaded and nobody mentioned it? Or...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's interesting to ponder. IBM said that the POWER 4 isn't multi-threaded and that the 970 core is based on the POWER 4. But i don't remember them sayiing that the 970 won't be multi-threaded capable... We know that the POWER 5 will be multi-threaded caapable so, it's little brother, the 980, should also be.