"Hard to tell with out some concrete comparisons, but if the 970 had SMT... I would wager a singel 2.5GHz 970 would beat the pants off a dual 1.42GHz G4. But I don't think the 970 has SMT capabilities. But even without SMT, with the bus improvements, 2 FP units; it's too close to call."
the raw performance of 2 1.42 G4 vs. 1 970 may be equal.... but a 970 would spank 2 G4s in single thread performance, which for MOST things is far more important. that being said... don't start counting on 2.5GHz macs shipping anytime soon... if they do - great; but it is far more likely that initial clocks will be more conservative, and scale consistantly from there. If a 1.8 GHz part shows up in the top of the line machine relatively soon, it is nothing to complain about... depending on the definition of "relatively soon"... and again.... its not the GHz gap that is important... but the total execution time for any given task... clock rates are secondary at best
<strong>the raw performance of 2 1.42 G4 vs. 1 970 may be equal.... but a 970 would spank 2 G4s in single thread performance, which for MOST things is far more important. that being said... don't start counting on 2.5GHz macs shipping anytime soon... if they do - great; but it is far more likely that initial clocks will be more conservative, and scale consistantly from there. If a 1.8 GHz part shows up in the top of the line machine relatively soon, it is nothing to complain about... depending on the definition of "relatively soon"... and again.... its not the GHz gap that is important... but the total execution time for any given task... clock rates are secondary at best</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, you need to remember that Altivec operations are essentially bus bound and that the 970's bus will be completely superior to the G4 hack. So a single 970 will absolutely crush any dual G4 system when it comes to altivec operations as well as for single threaded apps. There won't be any comparsion.
Well, that bit of info that was collected from IBM's website tells me that they plan on slapping the LIVING $HIT out of Intel, since Itanic sales and expectations have fallen FAR short of what Intel has claimed. IBM seems to be planning a major STOMP-A-THON. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
And for some strange reason, I keep thinking that IBM *could* (if there was an arrangement with Apple) to license OS X to run on some of those boxes that IBM is going to produce. Yes, I know IBM will be pushing LINUX, but let's face it, OS X is already far ahead in many respects and might be exactly what some users/companies want instead of a Micro$oft solution or a LINUX solution. In any event, it looks like it's PAYBACK TIME.
How many people have a feeling that IBM is planning a 2 prong attack on the Wintel monopoly they helped create in the mid 80's? IBM's R&D on Linux is nothing compared to what it was on OS/2. They are preparing some beefy desktop processors that seem to beat the pants off anything planned for AMD or Intel. Plus they are hedging their bets with offering PowerPC AND Intel servers and desktops. Offer and push PowerPC + Linux, and if they want Intel and MS then give it to them. they make $$ either way but it promotes PPC+Linux in a way that no other company can. Eventually people will 'get it' and you may see some significant developments in the future regarding PPC and or Linux.
That press release says the 970 runs at frequences from 1.8 to 2.5 Ghz. So what happened to everything below 1.8? Are they really not even going to make anything less than 1.8 now? What are we missing here?
I think they are referring to the Blade specs and not the general speed spread of the 970. If Apple wanted 1.4GHz for portables I'm sure IBM could provide.
Stupid question, but does anybody have an idea of how much these blade severs cost? My thinking is that if they are say $10-20K, than we are not going to be seeing them in a powermac anytime soon. However, if they are only 1-2K than we are all in business!
<strong>That press release says the 970 runs at frequences from 1.8 to 2.5 Ghz. So what happened to everything below 1.8? Are they really not even going to make anything less than 1.8 now? What are we missing here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM wont be using anything below 1.8 Ghz for thier blade servers, it isnt saying that there will not be processors under 1.8 Ghz. The real questions we need answered now are:
What is the cost breakdown of these chips, and how does that compare to the G4
What is the fastest chips that IBM will sell to an outside vendor in quantity.
If the yeilds of the 2.5 Ghz chips are good enough to cost the same as the 1.42 G4, and large enough to fullfill IBM's needs for their blade servers as well as a High end Dual 2.5 Ghz PM, then everyone will be happy. Happier still if IBM could produce 970's with appropriate cost savings at even lower speeds, say down to 1 Ghz, and meet the demands of the high end and low end of Apple's product line, and Apple gave us a total switch to the 970's by year end. But that is just dreaming <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
if IBM can make a 1.8 chip as easily and as cheaply as a 1.6 chip...why make the 1.6?? i think what they are saying/doing is manufacturing chips and the high volume/low yield is at 1.8.....and some of the chips are faster...up to 2.5....weeeeeeeee
the iMac FP can go to the kids room and i can justify a tower...."but honey, this is twice as fast....i can read my email and post at AI in half the time...."
"Okay I'm thinking of purchasing a 2.5 GHz 970 Powermac this fall for school , but I'm wondering if I should just wait for the Dua; 3 Ghz that we have all heard rumored... Any advice?"
I guess my big fear is that Apple (in logic-defying typicalness) does not adopt the 970.
<strong>if IBM can make a 1.8 chip as easily and as cheaply as a 1.6 chip...why make the 1.6?? i think what they are saying/doing is manufacturing chips and the high volume/low yield is at 1.8.....and some of the chips are faster...up to 2.5....weeeeeeeee
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because a 1.6GHz will use less power and be cooler than a 1.8. Especially when considering usage in a portable.
Also, don't forget the lower voltage 970s, which trade speed for power consumption.
Those won't be in the 1.8-2.5GHz range. However, they might still be cool enough for at least the two bigger PowerBooks, in which case we'll be seeing ~2GHz 970 PowerBooks this year.
<strong>I think they are referring to the Blade specs and not the general speed spread of the 970. If Apple wanted 1.4GHz for portables I'm sure IBM could provide.</strong><hr></blockquote>Perhaps, but that's not the way it reads to me. In the paragraph with those specs, they're discussing the 970, not the Blade, as I read it.
Eh, these IBM server people probably just aren't used to these rabid Mac users clinging onto every number.
What's this about low-power 970s? Is there any official info on that?
<strong>Perhaps, but that's not the way it reads to me. In the paragraph with those specs, they're discussing the 970, not the Blade, as I read it.
Eh, these IBM server people probably just aren't used to these rabid Mac users clinging onto every number.
What's this about low-power 970s? Is there any official info on that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's not much publicly official info on anything to do with the 970 besides some non technical press releases and a presentation PDF. Hannibal from Ars has some private info he was supposed to disclose in part 2 of his epic 970 saga article but has yet to do so. Personally, knowing his bias, I think he is afraid of showing his findings in that it totally obliterates anything on the x86 side or processor design.
<strong>I hope that Apple releases a dual 2.5ghz 970 for the "price-is-no-object" professionals. That would get apple some respect. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple better not abandon the dual processor scheme now.
we were begging for it for the longest time. As I said in past. I wish I had an industry leading PowerHouse 3D workstation, or Server that had an Apple logo on it.
You really need duals to render.
I was just pricing a Dual Xeon configuration, but decided to wait for Q2 when intel releases these 800MHz FSB Xeons, and a new high performance moptherboard to match.
However, now I'm waiting to see a MP 970 in action.
Can anyone say Maya Unlimited 5.0 for OS X?
A dual 970 @ 2.4GHz could be an extremely impressive 3D workstation for Apple.
Imaginge a 2U Xserve with Quad 970's. Start a freakin renderfarm.
<strong>Just curious... Without a release date, how do we know these aren't the specs for a second generation of 970s?</strong><hr></blockquote>
the 970+ or second generation 970 is a 90nm part. The links shows the blade using 130nm parts. Just that one thing tells me that these will use 1st generation 970 processors
Comments
the raw performance of 2 1.42 G4 vs. 1 970 may be equal.... but a 970 would spank 2 G4s in single thread performance, which for MOST things is far more important. that being said... don't start counting on 2.5GHz macs shipping anytime soon... if they do - great; but it is far more likely that initial clocks will be more conservative, and scale consistantly from there. If a 1.8 GHz part shows up in the top of the line machine relatively soon, it is nothing to complain about... depending on the definition of "relatively soon"... and again.... its not the GHz gap that is important... but the total execution time for any given task... clock rates are secondary at best
<strong>the raw performance of 2 1.42 G4 vs. 1 970 may be equal.... but a 970 would spank 2 G4s in single thread performance, which for MOST things is far more important. that being said... don't start counting on 2.5GHz macs shipping anytime soon... if they do - great; but it is far more likely that initial clocks will be more conservative, and scale consistantly from there. If a 1.8 GHz part shows up in the top of the line machine relatively soon, it is nothing to complain about... depending on the definition of "relatively soon"... and again.... its not the GHz gap that is important... but the total execution time for any given task... clock rates are secondary at best</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, you need to remember that Altivec operations are essentially bus bound and that the 970's bus will be completely superior to the G4 hack. So a single 970 will absolutely crush any dual G4 system when it comes to altivec operations as well as for single threaded apps. There won't be any comparsion.
<strong>I've been waiting for Hannibals second 970 article for MONTHS. Where is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's still trying to pick his jaw up off the floor.
And for some strange reason, I keep thinking that IBM *could* (if there was an arrangement with Apple) to license OS X to run on some of those boxes that IBM is going to produce. Yes, I know IBM will be pushing LINUX, but let's face it, OS X is already far ahead in many respects and might be exactly what some users/companies want instead of a Micro$oft solution or a LINUX solution. In any event, it looks like it's PAYBACK TIME.
--
Ed M.
<strong>That press release says the 970 runs at frequences from 1.8 to 2.5 Ghz. So what happened to everything below 1.8? Are they really not even going to make anything less than 1.8 now? What are we missing here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM wont be using anything below 1.8 Ghz for thier blade servers, it isnt saying that there will not be processors under 1.8 Ghz. The real questions we need answered now are:
- What is the cost breakdown of these chips, and how does that compare to the G4
- What is the fastest chips that IBM will sell to an outside vendor in quantity.
If the yeilds of the 2.5 Ghz chips are good enough to cost the same as the 1.42 G4, and large enough to fullfill IBM's needs for their blade servers as well as a High end Dual 2.5 Ghz PM, then everyone will be happy. Happier still if IBM could produce 970's with appropriate cost savings at even lower speeds, say down to 1 Ghz, and meet the demands of the high end and low end of Apple's product line, and Apple gave us a total switch to the 970's by year end. But that is just dreaming <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />the iMac FP can go to the kids room and i can justify a tower...."but honey, this is twice as fast....i can read my email and post at AI in half the time...."
g
"Okay I'm thinking of purchasing a 2.5 GHz 970 Powermac this fall for school , but I'm wondering if I should just wait for the Dua; 3 Ghz that we have all heard rumored... Any advice?"
I guess my big fear is that Apple (in logic-defying typicalness) does not adopt the 970.
MSKR
<strong>if IBM can make a 1.8 chip as easily and as cheaply as a 1.6 chip...why make the 1.6?? i think what they are saying/doing is manufacturing chips and the high volume/low yield is at 1.8.....and some of the chips are faster...up to 2.5....weeeeeeeee
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because a 1.6GHz will use less power and be cooler than a 1.8. Especially when considering usage in a portable.
Those won't be in the 1.8-2.5GHz range. However, they might still be cool enough for at least the two bigger PowerBooks, in which case we'll be seeing ~2GHz 970 PowerBooks this year.
This all seems too good to be true, doesn't it?
<strong>I think they are referring to the Blade specs and not the general speed spread of the 970. If Apple wanted 1.4GHz for portables I'm sure IBM could provide.</strong><hr></blockquote>Perhaps, but that's not the way it reads to me. In the paragraph with those specs, they're discussing the 970, not the Blade, as I read it.
Eh, these IBM server people probably just aren't used to these rabid Mac users clinging onto every number.
What's this about low-power 970s? Is there any official info on that?
<strong>Perhaps, but that's not the way it reads to me. In the paragraph with those specs, they're discussing the 970, not the Blade, as I read it.
Eh, these IBM server people probably just aren't used to these rabid Mac users clinging onto every number.
What's this about low-power 970s? Is there any official info on that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's not much publicly official info on anything to do with the 970 besides some non technical press releases and a presentation PDF. Hannibal from Ars has some private info he was supposed to disclose in part 2 of his epic 970 saga article but has yet to do so. Personally, knowing his bias, I think he is afraid of showing his findings in that it totally obliterates anything on the x86 side or processor design.
<strong>I hope that Apple releases a dual 2.5ghz 970 for the "price-is-no-object" professionals. That would get apple some respect.
Apple better not abandon the dual processor scheme now.
we were begging for it for the longest time. As I said in past. I wish I had an industry leading PowerHouse 3D workstation, or Server that had an Apple logo on it.
You really need duals to render.
I was just pricing a Dual Xeon configuration, but decided to wait for Q2 when intel releases these 800MHz FSB Xeons, and a new high performance moptherboard to match.
However, now I'm waiting to see a MP 970 in action.
Can anyone say Maya Unlimited 5.0 for OS X?
A dual 970 @ 2.4GHz could be an extremely impressive 3D workstation for Apple.
Imaginge a 2U Xserve with Quad 970's. Start a freakin renderfarm.
<strong>Just curious... Without a release date, how do we know these aren't the specs for a second generation of 970s?</strong><hr></blockquote>
the 970+ or second generation 970 is a 90nm part. The links shows the blade using 130nm parts. Just that one thing tells me that these will use 1st generation 970 processors