Just asking, but if reports that the 970 are twice as fast at the same clock as the MPC 7455, which should hold pretty much true for the MPC 7457(since nothing really changed other that L2 cache, then why not a 1.0GHz-1.4GHz in the powerbooks/imacs/ibooks???? Or, an IBM version of the G4 based on the G3 w/ altivec????</strong>
It was wishful thinking. Everything is pretty much up in the air. We don't even know when Apple will use the 7457, and that should be a no brainer. But I suppose I can speculate.
As for the my wishful thinking, I was just thinking that duals provide a better experience, and using dual PPC 970 CPUs would be a bit too much for a laptop while a single PPC 970 will probaby too expensive for iMacs and iBooks. That leaves the 7457.
One other thing I find interesting is that 10.3 is rumoured to be targeted for around September. The update to a 64-bit version of the OS would certain be a major revision number.
Let's face it. Apple cpu problems can't go on with slight...incremental bumps while x86 ville are dawning on a new 64 bit ages and a Pentium 4 cruising to 4 gig. Something's got to give.</strong>
Well, incremental bumps is the way to go because it maximizes the dollars. It would be bad (for Apple) to waste CPU increments. AMD and Intel always incremented by 50 to 200 MHz at a time, but did it every quarter instead of 6 months like PowerPC. Apple needs to have a quarterly update cycle really if they want to catch up in MHz.
Pentium 4 increases to 4 GHz probably won't happen until Q2 04. The 3.2 GHz P4 is hitting its power limits at 130 nm, and there isn't much stretch left. They'll probably get to 3.2 GHz in the next 4 months or so, than 3.6 GHz when a 90 nm P4 ships at the end of the year, maybe Q1 04. The big thing will be the quad data rate 200 MHz processor bus representing a marketing number of 800 MHz bitrate for its bus. That's the PPC 970's bus bitrate!
The Opteron won't be in Apple's space. (If AMD has it there they will be in trouble financially.) The Itaniums aren't in Apple's space. The Athlon 64 is now due in September.
<strong>Can you really imagine 'power'Macs on dual 1.6 gig on a crummy 166 bus to the years end?</strong>
Well, yes I can. It's not funny obviously.
<strong>It's just been so long...Apple surely must have been working on something seizmic to get us back kicking x86 booty. (Say with Geordie accent!)</strong>
I'm hoping for by this time next year:
Dual PPC 970 1.8 GHz Power Macs
Dual PPC 7457 1.5 GHz Powerbooks (there's lots of pcb space if backside cache is eliminated)
PPC 7457 1.5 GHz iMacs (with backside cache)
PPC 7457 1.3 GHz iBooks (without backside cache)
and a Cube-like tower with a 1.3 GHz 7457 for $800. [/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Incramental upgrades done too often could potentially cost more money. Apple needs to get the most "bang for the buck" on their upgrades. I dont think that there is anything wrong with the 6 month (aproximate) cycle that they are on now, however, right now they could probably get away with 3/year till they catch up. The biggest problem that I see with their strategy is:
Apple has not been agressive enough in addressing other shortcomings of their systems, such as bus speed in the consumer lines and USB2 adoption
Apple has again "waffeled" on the MP Pr line, which sends mixed signals to its userbase and developer community
Apple is not agressive enough in Processor speeds boosts in their consumer line. There is room to "grow" here if they keep the MP pro lines, and SP consumer lines. The iMac should have been at 1.25 Ghz with the last upgrade to make it more competative with the overall market.
Now I do realize that processor speeds and design (G4) are limiting Apples ability to push the envalope any further in this arena. However they could do more to adress limitations in other components like the AGP system, drive speed, etc. This is even more possable in their consumer line, which is competing with systems with as much as twice the speed in both the processor and memory.
Based upon the recent updates, it appears from the outside that Apple is doing everything that they can to improve their hardware but remain hamstrung by the top end performance of the G4, which causes a trickle-down effect limiting the rest of the line-up. The hope of a roughly simultaneous arrival of the 7457 and the 970 now seems ill-founded. With production scheduled to commence in Q4 it seems unlikely that commercial volumes of the 7457 would be available until 2004.
In trying to understand the logic behind Apple 's current line-up, one small ray of hope emerges.
First two assumptions: Apple has decided to abandon the G4 since not upgrade is not foreseeable until next year, and the 13 nm 970 may run too hot above 1.2 GHz for the PowerBooks and iMacs,
Apple may have held back on 1.25 GHz machines so that they would have room to introduce a 1.2 GHz 970 in August/September. This would also explain the "place-holder" appearance of the current line-up.
This leaves a couple of scenarios (assuming that the 970 will be available in Q3):
Great:
PowerMac 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 GHz 970
iMac 1.2 GHz 970
PowerBook 1.2 GHz 970
iBook, 1 GHz new G3
Not so Great:
PowerMac 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 GHz 970
iMac 1.25 GHz 7455
PowerBook 1.25 GHz 7455
iBook, 1 GHz new G4
The first scenario would have the iMacs and PowerBooks switching over to the 9 nm 970 for future upgrades. The second scenario would leave the PowerBooks and consumer line following the G4 map for 18 months to 2 years.
An all IBM line-up may be pure fantasy, but a guy has gotta be able to dream.
The 74XX won't narrow the gap with the PC world, but it will be welcomed by Apple wherever economy and power-consumption matter. So in October, envision a line-up like this:
Xserve: dual 1.6 7457
Powerbook: 1.3 - 1.6 7457
iMac: 1.3 - 1.6 7457
eMac: 1.3 7447
iBook: 1.0-1.3 7447
Eventually, only the iBook, eMac and new iPad will remain on the 74xx...
[quote] I want the 970 this year, so that means no more G4s <hr></blockquote>
Praise the LORD!
Ompus called it. There will a place for the G4 where its 'qualities' are called for. But they JUST WON'T BE IN A BAD ASS POWER-TOWER!
(Pictures the 970 launch. People...Applelites over the world rejoiced...women and children singing and dancing in the streets...G4 brown nosers and G4 bashers unite in perfect harmony over the ORGASMIC power of the 970...Mac journalists shed tears of joy as they go back to the drawing board to engineer new benches to try and measure a 970 Word scroll...Lemon Bon Bon opening his wallet...and taking a tower bashing vowe of silence...)
A 64 bit version of the OS is not required to properly run on the 970 is it?? It may not be optimised but would still function correct? I sure hope this is not holding up the chip's intro.
<strong>A 64 bit version of the OS is not required to properly run on the 970 is it??</strong><hr></blockquote>
It shouldn't be.
If the motherboard changed significantly - and in some ways it would have to - then the OS will have to be updated accordingly. Some people have asserted that Apple is behind schedule with the chipsets that will accompany the 970. That might be a bigger problem.
At any rate, if Apple's not concerned with making OS X run as fast as possible on the 970 right out of the starting gate, it should not be that difficult to get it 64 bit ready.
[quote]<strong>I sure hope this is not holding up the chip's intro.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM has said that production begins in the second half of this year. Notwithstanding the people who seem to think that March occurs in the second half of this year , I wouldn't expect the 970 before late summer at the very earliest. Apple might do a paper release in July, but I'm not expecting more than that.
Incramental upgrades done too often could potentially cost more money. Apple needs to get the most "bang for the buck" on their upgrades.</strong>
I think this problem can be mitigated if Apple kept a very very small inventory like they did a couple of years ago and varied their price points in shorter cycles. I'd like to see a time where they can just introduce a new higher machine anytime, like quarterly, and everything cascades down from there.
I guess Dell has no problem with this since they don't have a channel to protect, just their inventory, what little they do have.
<strong>Apple has not been agressive enough in addressing other shortcomings of their systems, such as bus speed in the consumer lines and USB2 adoption</strong>
Bus speed can't be helped. USB2 is a political.
<strong>Apple has again "waffeled" on the MP Pr line, which sends mixed signals to its userbase and developer community</strong>
Agree here. The Power Macs should be permanantly dual processor. The 1 GHz Power Mac now sold should be a dual 1 GHz for $1799. I think dual processor 15" and 17" Powerbooks are also doable with the 130 nm 7457.
<strong>Apple is not agressive enough in Processor speeds boosts in their consumer line. There is room to "grow" here if they keep the MP pro lines, and SP consumer lines. The iMac should have been at 1.25 Ghz with the last upgrade to make it more competative with the overall market.</strong>
I don't think this can be helped without a larger stratification in processor clock rates, but you have a point here. Power Macs get 1.4 GHz duals with backside cache. iMacs get 1.25 GHz singles without backside cache. However, I think the iMac line needs to be driven down another $200 or $300 for it to be competitive with the overall market.
<strong>However they could do more to adress limitations in other components like the AGP system, drive speed, etc. This is even more possable in their consumer line, which is competing with systems with as much as twice the speed in both the processor and memory.</strong>
I think Apple's main problem here is that the low end costs too much. I've been pricing out some low end Dells, and a machine can be had for less than $800 and a decent machine for less than $1100 (including monitors). This means that the base eMac needs to cost $799 and the base iMac needs to cost $999 or so. If they were around there, I think a lot of us would be more comfortable with purchasing the all-in-ones. Which AGP bus and which graphics card starts to become too technical for the vast majority of buyers at these price points, so I don't Apple would have that much to worry about with their current low end specs.
<strong>This leaves a couple of scenarios (assuming that the 970 will be available in Q3):
Great:
PowerMac 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 GHz 970
iMac 1.2 GHz 970
PowerBook 1.2 GHz 970
An all IBM line-up may be pure fantasy, but a guy has gotta be able to dream.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know that Apple did the same thing when they introduce the G3 ! That was "Pro-Go-Whoa" ! I can't remember if the web site was closed for a week with just this sentence. See this <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19980509035420/http://www.apple.com/"; target="_blank">link.</a>
I really hope that Apple will do the same thing with the 970.
I think it was mentioned here before that we might see a 64bit version of the OS at the WWDC to get developers up to speed. If not by then, either Apple figures there's no need to update the OS for the 970 and apps will run just fine unaltered, or we are in for a longer wait than expected. Maybe '04? I need my 970 PPC injection NOW!
<strong>If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the fiscal 2H of 03 begin in March/April 03?
I believe there was some controversy as to whether IBM was referring to the fiscal or actual (for lack of a better term) 2H.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are mistaken.
IBM's fiscal and calendar years are pretty much aligned, and the timeline they specified back in the MDF was unambiguious even without that information. Aug-Sept is the most likely arrival date, barring any engineering delays.
The 970 will require a minor update to the OS, but it should get a whole set of 64-bit APIs so that developers can start building 64-bit applications. Since Apple has had 64-bit hardware for a long time, FreeBSD is 64-bit clean, and all of the other code is relatively new this shouldn't really be a problem. I expect them to roll out the 64-bit interfaces as WWDC as part of a 10.3 preview.
Apple might have had OSX running on Power 3/4 machines from IBM.. so they might have had at least 2 years of turning OSX into a full fledged 64-bit OS. Off to a running start..
[quote] We've been dealing with this very issue in-house at our studio. We really want to move to Shake, but we need a render farm. I have heard all the arguments for the Mac as a render farm from stability to performance to whatever. But, we've been dealing with this for some time and the owners of the studio have a hard time shelling out $3,500 per Mac machine when they can purchase four Windows equivalents that would get the job done in less than half of the time as the Mac.
<hr></blockquote>
X-grid and 970 power?
Renderfarm in the making?
The '57' just aint the answer. Naff fp.
Any reason Apple can do render farms in light of their surprise entry in business territory with X-serve/X-raid.
Just a thought. If Motorola does manage to manufacture a 1.6+ GHz 7457, what are the odds that Apple uses it?
If Apple is really clearing the decks for the 970, it would be marketing disaster for them to put out a machine with a "lower speed" than what already exists (benchmarks notwithstanding... Clockspeed = Speed for probably 75% of personal computer users)
It's the same reason that Apple did not want to use the fast G3's when there was that awkward position of having G3's that had a higher clockspeed than their G4's. Bad marketing to have the iMac appear faster than the PM.
I wouldn't count on *any* PM updates for a **long** time, unless IBM is getting much higher speed yields than we know about.
Comments
Just asking, but if reports that the 970 are twice as fast at the same clock as the MPC 7455, which should hold pretty much true for the MPC 7457(since nothing really changed other that L2 cache, then why not a 1.0GHz-1.4GHz in the powerbooks/imacs/ibooks???? Or, an IBM version of the G4 based on the G3 w/ altivec????</strong>
It was wishful thinking.
As for the my wishful thinking, I was just thinking that duals provide a better experience, and using dual PPC 970 CPUs would be a bit too much for a laptop while a single PPC 970 will probaby too expensive for iMacs and iBooks. That leaves the 7457.
<strong>[qb]That leaves the 7457.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speculating is quite entertaining
Why not a G3 w/ Altivec, I believe it's somewhere on IBM's roadmap? 1GHz, 4 stage pipeline, very low power, already on 0.13µm process?
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
Let's face it. Apple cpu problems can't go on with slight...incremental bumps while x86 ville are dawning on a new 64 bit ages and a Pentium 4 cruising to 4 gig. Something's got to give.</strong>
Well, incremental bumps is the way to go because it maximizes the dollars. It would be bad (for Apple) to waste CPU increments. AMD and Intel always incremented by 50 to 200 MHz at a time, but did it every quarter instead of 6 months like PowerPC. Apple needs to have a quarterly update cycle really if they want to catch up in MHz.
Pentium 4 increases to 4 GHz probably won't happen until Q2 04. The 3.2 GHz P4 is hitting its power limits at 130 nm, and there isn't much stretch left. They'll probably get to 3.2 GHz in the next 4 months or so, than 3.6 GHz when a 90 nm P4 ships at the end of the year, maybe Q1 04. The big thing will be the quad data rate 200 MHz processor bus representing a marketing number of 800 MHz bitrate for its bus. That's the PPC 970's bus bitrate!
The Opteron won't be in Apple's space. (If AMD has it there they will be in trouble financially.) The Itaniums aren't in Apple's space. The Athlon 64 is now due in September.
<strong>Can you really imagine 'power'Macs on dual 1.6 gig on a crummy 166 bus to the years end?</strong>
Well, yes I can. It's not funny obviously.
<strong>It's just been so long...Apple surely must have been working on something seizmic to get us back kicking x86 booty. (Say with Geordie accent!)</strong>
I'm hoping for by this time next year:
Dual PPC 970 1.8 GHz Power Macs
Dual PPC 7457 1.5 GHz Powerbooks (there's lots of pcb space if backside cache is eliminated)
PPC 7457 1.5 GHz iMacs (with backside cache)
PPC 7457 1.3 GHz iBooks (without backside cache)
and a Cube-like tower with a 1.3 GHz 7457 for $800.
Incramental upgrades done too often could potentially cost more money. Apple needs to get the most "bang for the buck" on their upgrades. I dont think that there is anything wrong with the 6 month (aproximate) cycle that they are on now, however, right now they could probably get away with 3/year till they catch up. The biggest problem that I see with their strategy is:
- Apple has not been agressive enough in addressing other shortcomings of their systems, such as bus speed in the consumer lines and USB2 adoption
- Apple has again "waffeled" on the MP Pr line, which sends mixed signals to its userbase and developer community
- Apple is not agressive enough in Processor speeds boosts in their consumer line. There is room to "grow" here if they keep the MP pro lines, and SP consumer lines. The iMac should have been at 1.25 Ghz with the last upgrade to make it more competative with the overall market.
Now I do realize that processor speeds and design (G4) are limiting Apples ability to push the envalope any further in this arena. However they could do more to adress limitations in other components like the AGP system, drive speed, etc. This is even more possable in their consumer line, which is competing with systems with as much as twice the speed in both the processor and memory.In trying to understand the logic behind Apple 's current line-up, one small ray of hope emerges.
First two assumptions: Apple has decided to abandon the G4 since not upgrade is not foreseeable until next year, and the 13 nm 970 may run too hot above 1.2 GHz for the PowerBooks and iMacs,
Apple may have held back on 1.25 GHz machines so that they would have room to introduce a 1.2 GHz 970 in August/September. This would also explain the "place-holder" appearance of the current line-up.
This leaves a couple of scenarios (assuming that the 970 will be available in Q3):
Great:
PowerMac 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 GHz 970
iMac 1.2 GHz 970
PowerBook 1.2 GHz 970
iBook, 1 GHz new G3
Not so Great:
PowerMac 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 GHz 970
iMac 1.25 GHz 7455
PowerBook 1.25 GHz 7455
iBook, 1 GHz new G4
The first scenario would have the iMacs and PowerBooks switching over to the 9 nm 970 for future upgrades. The second scenario would leave the PowerBooks and consumer line following the G4 map for 18 months to 2 years.
An all IBM line-up may be pure fantasy, but a guy has gotta be able to dream.
Xserve: dual 1.6 7457
Powerbook: 1.3 - 1.6 7457
iMac: 1.3 - 1.6 7457
eMac: 1.3 7447
iBook: 1.0-1.3 7447
Eventually, only the iBook, eMac and new iPad will remain on the 74xx...
<strong>...past update broke the 'high becomes low' trend Apple has followed recently.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, exactly what "trend" is that?
Praise the LORD!
Ompus called it. There will a place for the G4 where its 'qualities' are called for. But they JUST WON'T BE IN A BAD ASS POWER-TOWER!
(Pictures the 970 launch. People...Applelites over the world rejoiced...women and children singing and dancing in the streets...G4 brown nosers and G4 bashers unite in perfect harmony over the ORGASMIC power of the 970...Mac journalists shed tears of joy as they go back to the drawing board to engineer new benches to try and measure a 970 Word scroll...Lemon Bon Bon opening his wallet...and taking a tower bashing vowe of silence...)
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>A 64 bit version of the OS is not required to properly run on the 970 is it??</strong><hr></blockquote>
It shouldn't be.
If the motherboard changed significantly - and in some ways it would have to - then the OS will have to be updated accordingly. Some people have asserted that Apple is behind schedule with the chipsets that will accompany the 970. That might be a bigger problem.
At any rate, if Apple's not concerned with making OS X run as fast as possible on the 970 right out of the starting gate, it should not be that difficult to get it 64 bit ready.
[quote]<strong>I sure hope this is not holding up the chip's intro.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM has said that production begins in the second half of this year. Notwithstanding the people who seem to think that March occurs in the second half of this year
[ 02-11-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
I believe there was some controversy as to whether IBM was referring to the fiscal or actual (for lack of a better term) 2H.
Incramental upgrades done too often could potentially cost more money. Apple needs to get the most "bang for the buck" on their upgrades.</strong>
I think this problem can be mitigated if Apple kept a very very small inventory like they did a couple of years ago and varied their price points in shorter cycles. I'd like to see a time where they can just introduce a new higher machine anytime, like quarterly, and everything cascades down from there.
I guess Dell has no problem with this since they don't have a channel to protect, just their inventory, what little they do have.
<strong>Apple has not been agressive enough in addressing other shortcomings of their systems, such as bus speed in the consumer lines and USB2 adoption</strong>
Bus speed can't be helped. USB2 is a political.
<strong>Apple has again "waffeled" on the MP Pr line, which sends mixed signals to its userbase and developer community</strong>
Agree here. The Power Macs should be permanantly dual processor. The 1 GHz Power Mac now sold should be a dual 1 GHz for $1799. I think dual processor 15" and 17" Powerbooks are also doable with the 130 nm 7457.
<strong>Apple is not agressive enough in Processor speeds boosts in their consumer line. There is room to "grow" here if they keep the MP pro lines, and SP consumer lines. The iMac should have been at 1.25 Ghz with the last upgrade to make it more competative with the overall market.</strong>
I don't think this can be helped without a larger stratification in processor clock rates, but you have a point here. Power Macs get 1.4 GHz duals with backside cache. iMacs get 1.25 GHz singles without backside cache. However, I think the iMac line needs to be driven down another $200 or $300 for it to be competitive with the overall market.
<strong>However they could do more to adress limitations in other components like the AGP system, drive speed, etc. This is even more possable in their consumer line, which is competing with systems with as much as twice the speed in both the processor and memory.</strong>
I think Apple's main problem here is that the low end costs too much. I've been pricing out some low end Dells, and a machine can be had for less than $800 and a decent machine for less than $1100 (including monitors). This means that the base eMac needs to cost $799 and the base iMac needs to cost $999 or so. If they were around there, I think a lot of us would be more comfortable with purchasing the all-in-ones. Which AGP bus and which graphics card starts to become too technical for the vast majority of buyers at these price points, so I don't Apple would have that much to worry about with their current low end specs.
<strong>This leaves a couple of scenarios (assuming that the 970 will be available in Q3):
Great:
PowerMac 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 GHz 970
iMac 1.2 GHz 970
PowerBook 1.2 GHz 970
An all IBM line-up may be pure fantasy, but a guy has gotta be able to dream.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know that Apple did the same thing when they introduce the G3 ! That was "Pro-Go-Whoa" ! I can't remember if the web site was closed for a week with just this sentence. See this <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/19980509035420/http://www.apple.com/"; target="_blank">link.</a>
I really hope that Apple will do the same thing with the 970.
<hr></blockquote>
Me too.
Apple really have come a long way in five years. They need to go alot further still...
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the fiscal 2H of 03 begin in March/April 03?
I believe there was some controversy as to whether IBM was referring to the fiscal or actual (for lack of a better term) 2H.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are mistaken.
IBM's fiscal and calendar years are pretty much aligned, and the timeline they specified back in the MDF was unambiguious even without that information. Aug-Sept is the most likely arrival date, barring any engineering delays.
The 970 will require a minor update to the OS, but it should get a whole set of 64-bit APIs so that developers can start building 64-bit applications. Since Apple has had 64-bit hardware for a long time, FreeBSD is 64-bit clean, and all of the other code is relatively new this shouldn't really be a problem. I expect them to roll out the 64-bit interfaces as WWDC as part of a 10.3 preview.
So I guess that means Apple will be able to as well, right? No more doubts here? I can't wait...
<hr></blockquote>
X-grid and 970 power?
Renderfarm in the making?
The '57' just aint the answer. Naff fp.
Any reason Apple can do render farms in light of their surprise entry in business territory with X-serve/X-raid.
Lemon Bon Bon
If Apple is really clearing the decks for the 970, it would be marketing disaster for them to put out a machine with a "lower speed" than what already exists (benchmarks notwithstanding... Clockspeed = Speed for probably 75% of personal computer users)
It's the same reason that Apple did not want to use the fast G3's when there was that awkward position of having G3's that had a higher clockspeed than their G4's. Bad marketing to have the iMac appear faster than the PM.
I wouldn't count on *any* PM updates for a **long** time, unless IBM is getting much higher speed yields than we know about.