Power5

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 106
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    [quote]Originally posted by os10geek:

    <strong>7.20 gigahertz !? :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Apple better run off some Quad-970s pretty goddamn fast! Power5 seems like a good move to me! :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>

    You're talking like this is right around the corner. We're talking mid to late 2006 for this is all goes according to schedule.
  • Reply 22 of 106
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Yeah, and there's a Santa Claus too.
  • Reply 23 of 106
    Yeah, but by 2006, Apple will be even more behind than they are now. Better get ahead of Intel now.
  • Reply 24 of 106
    [quote]Originally posted by os10geek:

    <strong>Yeah, but by 2006, Apple will be even more behind than they are now. Better get ahead of Intel now.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why on Gods Earth would you say that? 2006 is 3 years from now. Three years ago in 2000 not only was Apple competitive in processors but in many ways more groundbreaking as they had the potential of the G3, X704 and PPC620. Don't drink the koolaid that PC users offer. Macs haven't always been slower than PC's by a long stretch.
  • Reply 25 of 106
    [crying]

    Quad Pumped 1200 Mhz Bus...



    And we're at a single 167 Mhz bus??

    [/crying]



    [Edit:] Were, schmere, we're...



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: T'hain Esh Kelch ]</p>
  • Reply 26 of 106
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by os10geek:

    <strong>Yeah, but by 2006, Apple will be even more behind than they are now. Better get ahead of Intel now.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    why will apple be even more behind then they are now?
  • Reply 27 of 106
    Despite my teasing with posting THAT Intel roadmap, let's not be too pessimistic.



    For a start, the PPC situation CANNOT get any worse than it is now. Simply not possible. That is, proviso, if Apple goes with IBM.



    The 970 will out perform the G4 at any clock 2 to one. Maybe even more if the bandwidth is anything to go by. And with Altivec at a faster mhz too. We're talking 3.6 gig G4 equivalent performance. That is going to be another ballpark for Mac users. And a bit ahead of what x86 have now or will have come the fall. Maybe.



    That's just on the .13 970. Then go duals. There is no way the x86 is going to enjoy the performance legacy over PPC (desktops) like it has had over the last several years. No way.



    Then there's the swift move to .9 970. That could take the 970 to 2-2.5 gig on that process, I'm guessing. With one or two bonus cpu features which we're not used to having with Moto's G4 bumps. I'd say any .9 970 is seriously going to thump any Prescott initiative by Intel. Why? Do we remember how the initial Pentium 4 cpus conned the Pentium 3 buying public? The Pentium 3 at 1 gig blew past the Pentium 4s at 1.4 gig! That a whole 400 mhz wasted at least!!! If we see a Prescot at 4 gig, how many effective instructions per cycle? Compare that to the 970 .13 and .9 and you can see how a 970 is going to more than hold its own.



    And with the Power 5 already thumping the Power 4 four to one :eek: :eek: :eek: then it's not hard to see a 3 gig Power 5 'Gpul' variant dragging a ten gig Pentium 5 over the hedge backwards.



    I do think the G4 is well past its bed time as a desktop cpu.



    And my greatest fear is Apple keeps the '57' for the current 'power'Macs and intros the 970s only at a new 'Uber station class' of POWERMacs. If that happens, I boycott the 'power'Macs for YET another year.



    However, despite my fears and my loathing of the G4 in towers...I still think...



    ...the future's bright, the future's Aqua PPC.



    Lemon Bon Bon :cool:



    And let us not forget that with 'X', Apple is well placed to go 64 bit. More so than x86 land who are scrambling and suffering delay after delay to get there. The inherent advantages of PPC were planned long ago to accommodate any more to 64 bit. Apple must be grinning from ear to ear. Sure, they've taken the mhz lumps over the last few years. Swings and roundabouts and guess what's coming around...



    Looks like the ballpark is levelling out...



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ] <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
  • Reply 28 of 106
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>



    I do think the G4 is well past its bed time as a desktop cpu.



    And my greatest fear is Apple keeps the '57' for the current 'power'Macs and intros the 970s only at a new 'Uber station class' of POWERMacs. If that happens, I boycott the 'power'Macs for YET another year.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Agreed ... unless of course the 970 is going to be soooo expensive that only "workstation class" machines can afford 'em, which would suck, paying 3x the price for maybe 1/4 more ooomph than a single equivalent Pentium. This won't fool anybody, and you can bet the PC Intel types would trumpet the price performance difference loud and clear.



    If Apple went ahead with '57's only in standard PowerMac's later in the year, I think Appleinsider would have to add a "Things That Suck" forum.



    Heck, maybe they should do it now ... Moto's been sucking for quite a while ...



    &lt;/motoVent&gt;
  • Reply 29 of 106
    OverToasty, I have one quick question for you. Considering just how much we're all lusting after the 970, just how much do you consider to be "soooo expensive"? I am of the mindset that if Apple drops the 970 into a Power Mac and Power Book, they will get sold, like candy to kids, and money won't be a factor. Are you will you pay $200 more? $300 more? Even $400 more for a CPU that leaves G4 in the dust? I realize that there are a lot of people out there that have to manage their pennies and make sure that they get the most bang for their buck. I used to be in that group, which is why I'm typing on a 600 MHz iBook. But there are those of us out here that want the 970 and that's just the way it is. I've got the cash, I'm not even concerned about the price. I just want the product...which is really what lust is all about. Hopefully Apple will get us a 970 Desktop & Laptop soon. Why buy an Escort when you can have a Porsche?
  • Reply 30 of 106
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I don't expect Apple price points to change (much) and if anything they will get lower. At 130nm with 52 million transistors it's a little bigger that the G4 at 180nm and smaller than the P4 (55 million transistors) on the same process size (121mm^2 versus 131mm^2). The processor itself should be around $350-500 depending on the speed step. Consider that the G4 also must add the cost of 1 or 2MB of L3 cache for the tower models at least. Final cost for a G4+L3; $300-450.
  • Reply 31 of 106
    Hi



    Heh, i know this is not really that relevant, but 2 weeks ago i attended IBM's brief about new eSeries, and they were saying, that there are not that many customers who want Power4, and these are big guys...



    but then again, it's server, plus Power4 they offer in some crazy cofigurations, goes up to 32way if i remember correctly..



    move on..
  • Reply 32 of 106
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Also, you have to consider that the 970 will be fabbed on 300mm wafers vs. 200mm (a cost savings), and that if history is any indication, IBM's fabs will have a significantly higher yield than Motorola's (again, a cost savings). These traits will carry over to the Power5 and any processors derived from it.

    Apple probably dropped the DP configuration at the low end because a single GHz G4 is not that much cheaper than two 867s.

    I don't think the rumors of a workstation-grade Mac at all conflict with a 970-based PowerMac. Remember, the 970 is built to scale up in a way that the G4 can only dream of. I don't see why Apple couldn't offer a single/dual 970 PowerMac at approximately the current prices (Outsider's point about the expensive L3 cache for the G4 is a good one), and they could also engineer a more expensive, more scalable architecture for workstations, using more 970s. I'm not convinced that they will, but they certainly have the option. Since the 970 is the first of a new breed of CPUs from IBM, with the Power5 up next, Apple could design a workstation motherboard with the confidence that they'll have a full roadmap of CPUs to drop in with minimal reengineering.

    It feels odd to be this optimistic, but I really do see Apple opening up a can of whoop ass this year and next.



    Oh, LBB, FYI: If the 970 goes to .9 micron, we're screwed. You mean .09 micron. That's a really important zero you're leaving out.



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 33 of 106
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,408member
    Dual 970's would be dangerous. Apple might have us sign Waivers.



    Drool and Electronics don't mix well.



    Hell I say make the Top Powermac Dual. I want to see something that has the power of TWO Pentium4 2.8Ghz procs in a Mac.
  • Reply 34 of 106
    Even if the 970 is relatively cheap (i.e., no more expensive than the Moto chips it replaces), I wonder if the overall system will still be inexpensive? Seems unlikely.



    I suspect one reason Apple introduced the single CPU PowerMac at this point is to reintroduce that configuration *before* it arrives in the 970. With the 970, Apple will likely get the performance of the current dual's out of a single 970. So, they'll ship single CPU machines for the entry level PM's.



    Despite the annoying downgrade factor (the across-the-board dual CPU professional configurations was a beautiful thing and would be even more beautiful with 970's), the 970 systems are likely to be fairly expensive. Consider the speed of the bus to support the 970. Sure the chip may be inexpensive, but that motherboard will be something else running at 5+ times the speed of current motherboards. The engineering tolerances for the 970 based systems will go way down.



    I don't know if that automatically translates into expense (and I don't know much about hardware engineering), but I'd be surprised if the new system chips (high-speed bus arbitration), high-speed memory subsystem(s), and the tight motherboard tolerances with humongous groundbreaking i/o bandwidth will entail some serious engineering in pieces, and the some serious system engineering to get them all to work together (not to mention the manufacturing issues to iron out).



    So, I look forward to the machines and hope Apple will blow everyone away with value, but the current single is (likely) not just there for cheap entry level but to avoid negative feedback when the entry level single 970 config hits the streets. That will be the cheap PM even though it'll still be pricey, and duals should be a good bit pricier (but we can hope).



    Just some uninformed hypothesizing.
  • Reply 35 of 106
    [quote] It feels odd to be this optimistic, but I really do see Apple opening up a can of whoop ass this year and next.



    Oh, LBB, FYI: If the 970 goes to .9 micron, we're screwed. You mean .09 micron. That's a really important zero you're leaving out. <hr></blockquote>



    Begging yer pardon



    I echo the feel of the last few posts.



    I don't see any reason for Apple to use the '57' in the 'power'Macs. It's more than time to pasture it to the consumer line, lock, stock and barrel. That way they can quit playing these 100 mhz bump over 13 month games...on naff 100 and 133 buses. The 970 should give them the latitude to really go for it. And as for the G4? Well, come 2004, a Rio 1.8 G4 in an iMac2? That's fair enough.



    But for the 'power'Macs? Come on. It's all about this. The 970. A return to the glory days when Macworld proclaimed that the Powercomputing 220 mhz TowerMac trounced the Pentium in all tests!



    970? They can simply put single 970s in the current 'power'Mac line up and duals for their 'Workstation' class at former 'power'Mac prices (which went up to as much as 4k in the past several years.)



    There's the option for quads and octos. I'm not sure about the efficiency of such configs. But Daystar managed a 4 way all those years ago and the performance was killer according to Macworld on things like Photoshop.



    The ball is in Apple's court on this one. They have the opportunity to really put the boot in with the 970. I'm talking Dr. Martin style.



    If Apple want to get back in my and other 'splinter buttock' creatives good books who are dying to come home...they KNOW what to do. But I'm not compromising my wallet because Apple marketing needs to buy a clue. I hope my '57'/970 split tier 'power'POWERMac scenario doesn't come true. It would be really deflating after the last several years to have the 'grail' snatched away at the vital moment



    I hope Amorph and Cos sentiments come true. In that case? I can sleep easy.



    By the way, folks, I've already ordered the glass table with chrome legs for my Uber 970 POWERMac. No. Seriously. It's coming in the next four weeks. I'm dying to put a 23 incher on it. A shame I'll have to wait longer to put a POWERMac underneath it. Sigh.



    Patience. Patience.



    Lemon Bon Bon



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
  • Reply 36 of 106
    I have reason to believe that Apple will not limit the 970 to an UberMac. I believe that they will be in the PowerMac from the beginning.



    Also, the 970 will NOT start production on 300mm wafers (it will move there when EF is ready). However, I still think that they will be costing much less than $500 a pop.



    [Edit: What the heck is this dicussion doing in the Power5 thead? This should be in one of the 970 threads... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ]



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>
  • Reply 37 of 106
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:

    <strong>I have reason to believe that Apple will not limit the 970 to an UberMac. I believe that they will be in the PowerMac from the beginning.



    Also, the 970 will NOT start production on 300mm wafers (it will move there when EF is ready). However, I still think that they will be costing much less than $500 a pop.



    [Edit: What the heck is this dicussion doing in the Power5 thead? This should be in one of the 970 threads... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> ]



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    500 a pop new seems questionable, but I can't imagine it being much less. New egg had the 3.06GHz P4's for like 740 when they were initially introduced. (which was robbery), but new-egg always has the best prices, and I think they beat or ='d any other price online.
  • Reply 38 of 106
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    woop's



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
  • Reply 39 of 106
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Dual 970's would be dangerous. Apple might have us sign Waivers.



    Drool and Electronics don't mix well.



    Hell I say make the Top Powermac Dual. I want to see something that has the power of TWO Pentium4 2.8Ghz procs in a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    If Apple does not stick with the Dual processor on the 970's I will probably become a reverse switcher.



    I love the dual Processor advantages even if it only apply' to a few # of features sometimes.



    It Helps in Maya, and any type of 3D package for almost everything though.



    Of you check out the new Dual Xeons motherboards. It's like your running quad processors, because of some new intel architecture.



    But by the time these 970 IBM powered machines come out Alias|Wavefront will probably have ported the Unlimited engine to OS X, and Mental Ray will be MP capable. Who knows about that though.



    [ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
  • Reply 40 of 106
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    [quote]Originally posted by onlooker:

    <strong>





    If Apple does not stick with the Dual processor on the 970's I will probably become a reverse switcher.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think that CPU yields will determine whether or not Apple goes for Dual CPU's. Apple knows full well that the first 970 machines are going to sell like mad, and so the first release of such chips will probably be single CPU's. The question would then be what the price is for the single CPU boxes. I wouldn't get your expectations up over dual 970's (except maybe on a rather expensive benchmark crushing uberprofessional desktop machine).
Sign In or Register to comment.