I tell ya, if Apple wants to stay in business they have to get a competitive desktop out there. Being two years late is better than never getting there, but with the 970 it's Apple's play.
They can get back up to a healthy marketshare by taking advantage of the very murky 64bit wintelon timeline, or they can get silly on price, and give wintelon a 18-24 months lead time to catch up.
Sell fast, now, often, and they'll be back in the game (with share in the 6-10% range a real possibility), put an elite price on it, Apple, and you will pretty squander the last clear chance you ever see to get back up to a safe maket share.
Increased performance can only get you so much, PRICES MUST SIMULTANEOUSLY COME DOWN.
Where is the reasonable priced tower? Granted an entry level PM at 1500 might look a lot better with a PPC970 in it, but the PM's (and the iMacs) are still from 200-500 too much.
The notion that Apple should hold back speed to not annoy people that have G4s is stupidity! We G4 owners should know better:
1984 68000
1985
1986
1887 68020
1988 68030
1989
1990
1991 68040
1992
1993
1994 601
1995 604
1996
1997 G3
1998
1999 G4
2000
2001
2002
2003????
Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
To be fair, I would differentiate the G4 (7400/10) and the G4+ (7450/55) as they are very different processors. Still, we are due for a change.
<strong>The same is true with the 970. Perhaps Apple does want to surprise us, but IBM is going to release their 970 servers at some point, and Mac buyers aren't going to be happy to see the 970s running much faster in those servers. It will mean that Apple could have shipped them but didn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly, and therefore we are sure to have the top-of-the-line 997 IBm can deliver. Or else Apple can't sell, and wont buy amy chips.
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
It said on the spec sheet for the game cube that are confident it will dominate the next decade. Well, i guess they forgot about a little console that has a handful of games, ah, what's it called, uh, ah yes, PLAYSTATION. A 2.0ghz is fine, but the PS3 (which IBM is also making) is equal to 50 1.4ghz G4s (so I read ) as it does a teraflop. Add to that HUNDREDS of games and I don't see how the came cube is going to 'dominate' unless they mean M$'s Xbox defenition of dominate.
Should be nice either way tho, all I care about is M$ getting left behind in a strorm of dust so I can continue my evil laughter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get real. You expect Sony to realese a game console which blows every single main frame on the planet out in the dust?
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>
We know Jobs knows it. Jobs also knows we know he knows it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Well that's good and all Matsu, but remember that the Infinium Labs (a new comer to the market) and Sammy/Sega are planning new consoles. Supposedly Sega has been able to contain the power of the DC on a single chip and they are always working on new arcade boards. Who knows what will happen in 2005?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Asteroids 2k5!
I would'nt expect a console from Sega in the near time.. And I'm talking at least 10 years from now.
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But if the Motorola rumors are to believe, there actually was a 2002 'G5'.
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>Well, porting OS X to 64-bit optimization is no small feat...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. OSX was made to be easily ported to 64 bit.
<strong>I tell ya, if Apple wants to stay in business they have to get a competitive desktop out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I obviously agree that they need an inexpensive desktop to push OS X into the business world, but I am not sure about the "if they want to stay in business." Apple is one of only a handful of computer companies still making money, even though we know better in terms of market share. I don't see them going belly up any time soon.
[quote]To be fair, I would differentiate the G4 (7400/10) and the G4+ (7450/55) as they are very different processors. Still, we are due for a change. <hr></blockquote>
The 604E at and above 250 MHz all the way up to 350 MHz with the backside bus to a L2 is also quite different from the first generation 604 but Apple kept the name as they have done wih the G3 that also have changed during its long life at the desktop.
I agree about the difficulty about determine when a CPU is new or not I just kept the names that Apple uses
BTW is there anyone who have any idea about the feasability of a 970 accelerator in G4 Mac computers?
I know that putting a much more powerful CPU usually end up with a limited performance gains due to other bottle necks. Like the 100 MHz 601 in a IIci or to some extent a G4/800 in a 7500/100
A 970 upgrade (if possible) would probably be underwhelming, as the 970 usually has 6.4GB/s of usuable bandwidth (3.2GB/s in each direction), but the G4's MPX bus can only supply 166MHz at 64bits wide, or 1.3GB/s total.
I agree with Stoo, it would be better to get a whole new system unless they have a 970 on the daughtercard with the companion chip / memory controller n the same card with DIMM slots on the same card leaving the DIMM slots on the motherboard useless vestiges. there would be need for an MPX to 970-bus bridge to access the motherboard peripheral controllers (like Firewire, ethernet, USB, sound, ATA, PCI, etc.) and I don't know who would invest in THAT project. My guess, not many.
I can see G4 upgrades working because the G4 supports both MaxBus and the 60x bus, which makes it theoretically compatible with every machine back to the 6100/60. The G3, of course, supports the 60x bus exclusively.
The 970 won't, so upgrade manufacturers will be faced with the unenviable task of bridging from the GigaBus to 60x/MaxBus, in effect coming up with their own companion chips. And the result would be a chronically starved 970 unless the upgrader basically included enough onboard RAM to cache system RAM more locally - if that would even work. The resulting card would not be cheap or available quickly unless something unlikely happened and a third party (or IBM) offered GigaBus-to-60x/MaxBus chips, or GigaBus-to-RapidIO and RapidIO-to-60x/MaxBus (so that there would be two companion chips linked serially).
We'll see a similar break when the G3 and G4 move to RapidIO with an onboard memory controller.
Imagine this for a top end line up a year from now (March 2004):
Power Mac G5 Dual Processor 2.5 GHz Power PC 970
PowerBook G5 1.8 GHz Power PC 970
...
Why can't this be a realistic outlook? Apple needs this type of speed for their machines.
<hr></blockquote>
Because need does not make magic happen? Just because Apple *needs* a God-machine does not mean that IBM can make it happen. Unless there's a run of bad luck (which is highly possible), we'll *probably* see a 1.8 GHz 970 PowerMac before March 2004.
[quote]
i think your quite realistic about this, but, according to your own comments about my previous post, aren't these specs a little pessimistic? <hr></blockquote>
Yea gods! And next week, Apple develops teleportation. Let's be a *tiny* bit realistic.
What's the fastest clockspeed of any desktop processor that IBM produces at the moment? Now you expect IBM to top that with a completely *new* processor produced on half a shoestring (which is *good* - it means its a lot less likely to be cancelled).
Expect what IBM has always produced. Solid, not flashy, incremental improvements. Going to the .09 will probably take about a year. I believe that's about what it took Intel, who probably spent 10 times what IBM is spending on it.
If we can get a 2.5 GHz 970 by March 2005, I'll be a happy camper. After all, I'd say if Intel is only getting twice the performance for probably 20 times the investment, its AIM that's the winner, not Intel.
<strong>A 970 upgrade (if possible) would probably be underwhelming, as the 970 usually has 6.4GB/s of usuable bandwidth (3.2GB/s in each direction), but the G4's MPX bus can only supply 166MHz at 64bits wide, or 1.3GB/s total.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bus has been starving the processors since the dual 1 Ghz, so its no use putting a 970 in one of those machines which is top of the line right now.
<strong>I can see G4 upgrades working because the G4 supports both MaxBus and the 60x bus, which makes it theoretically compatible with every machine back to the 6100/60. The G3, of course, supports the 60x bus exclusively.
The 970 won't, so upgrade manufacturers will be faced with the unenviable task of bridging from the GigaBus to 60x/MaxBus, in effect coming up with their own companion chips. And the result would be a chronically starved 970 unless the upgrader basically included enough onboard RAM to cache system RAM more locally - if that would even work. The resulting card would not be cheap or available quickly unless something unlikely happened and a third party (or IBM) offered GigaBus-to-60x/MaxBus chips, or GigaBus-to-RapidIO and RapidIO-to-60x/MaxBus (so that there would be two companion chips linked serially).
We'll see a similar break when the G3 and G4 move to RapidIO with an onboard memory controller.
[quote] Expect what IBM has always produced. Solid, not flashy, incremental improvements. Going to the .09 will probably take about a year. I believe that's about what it took Intel, who probably spent 10 times what IBM is spending on it. <hr></blockquote>
Three things
1) They're called BIG Blue for a reason. They have a market cap that is 20% larger than that of Intel. Additionally, they've got assets of about $84 billion, Intel $43 billion.
2) "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM."
3) You make it sound like IBM just the other day said, "Hey, you know that 0.09 micron process sounds like a good idea, maybe we should look into it."
My point is IBM has been making preparations for 0.09 for a while. They have a huge amount of assets to make the transition. Perhaps most importantly, IBM will make the transition faster, better and cheaper than Intel. Big Blue is well managed, on the war path, and firing on all cylinders. They're kicking butt with Linux, they're nibbling away at Sun, and they're about to shove the Power4 family into Intel where the sun don't shine.
Irony abounds. This was the line that kept the Mac out of the corporate world in the first place. It was the IBM PC that established x86 as "de rigueur" for business. Let's hope Big Blue can do it again with the 970 and its descendants!
Comments
They can get back up to a healthy marketshare by taking advantage of the very murky 64bit wintelon timeline, or they can get silly on price, and give wintelon a 18-24 months lead time to catch up.
Sell fast, now, often, and they'll be back in the game (with share in the 6-10% range a real possibility), put an elite price on it, Apple, and you will pretty squander the last clear chance you ever see to get back up to a safe maket share.
Increased performance can only get you so much, PRICES MUST SIMULTANEOUSLY COME DOWN.
Where is the reasonable priced tower? Granted an entry level PM at 1500 might look a lot better with a PPC970 in it, but the PM's (and the iMacs) are still from 200-500 too much.
<strong>
The notion that Apple should hold back speed to not annoy people that have G4s is stupidity! We G4 owners should know better:
1984 68000
1985
1986
1887 68020
1988 68030
1989
1990
1991 68040
1992
1993
1994 601
1995 604
1996
1997 G3
1998
1999 G4
2000
2001
2002
2003????
Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
To be fair, I would differentiate the G4 (7400/10) and the G4+ (7450/55) as they are very different processors. Still, we are due for a change.
<strong>The same is true with the 970. Perhaps Apple does want to surprise us, but IBM is going to release their 970 servers at some point, and Mac buyers aren't going to be happy to see the 970s running much faster in those servers. It will mean that Apple could have shipped them but didn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly, and therefore we are sure to have the top-of-the-line 997 IBm can deliver. Or else Apple can't sell, and wont buy amy chips.
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
It said on the spec sheet for the game cube that are confident it will dominate the next decade. Well, i guess they forgot about a little console that has a handful of games, ah, what's it called, uh, ah yes, PLAYSTATION. A 2.0ghz is fine, but the PS3 (which IBM is also making) is equal to 50 1.4ghz G4s (so I read ) as it does a teraflop. Add to that HUNDREDS of games and I don't see how the came cube is going to 'dominate' unless they mean M$'s Xbox defenition of dominate.
Should be nice either way tho, all I care about is M$ getting left behind in a strorm of dust so I can continue my evil laughter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get real. You expect Sony to realese a game console which blows every single main frame on the planet out in the dust?
[quote]Originally posted by costique:
<strong>
We know Jobs knows it. Jobs also knows we know he knows it.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>Well that's good and all Matsu, but remember that the Infinium Labs (a new comer to the market) and Sammy/Sega are planning new consoles. Supposedly Sega has been able to contain the power of the DC on a single chip and they are always working on new arcade boards. Who knows what will happen in 2005?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Asteroids 2k5!
I would'nt expect a console from Sega in the near time.. And I'm talking at least 10 years from now.
[quote]Originally posted by DrBoar:
<strong>Do note that before G4 there was a CPU there was new top of the line CPUs at least every 3 years sometime more often. The fact that there was no new CPU in 2001 was a bit odd and that there was no one in 2002 is actually a record.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But if the Motorola rumors are to believe, there actually was a 2002 'G5'.
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>Well, porting OS X to 64-bit optimization is no small feat...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. OSX was made to be easily ported to 64 bit.
<strong>I tell ya, if Apple wants to stay in business they have to get a competitive desktop out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I obviously agree that they need an inexpensive desktop to push OS X into the business world, but I am not sure about the "if they want to stay in business." Apple is one of only a handful of computer companies still making money, even though we know better in terms of market share. I don't see them going belly up any time soon.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
The 604E at and above 250 MHz all the way up to 350 MHz with the backside bus to a L2 is also quite different from the first generation 604 but Apple kept the name as they have done wih the G3 that also have changed during its long life at the desktop.
I agree about the difficulty about determine when a CPU is new or not I just kept the names that Apple uses
BTW is there anyone who have any idea about the feasability of a 970 accelerator in G4 Mac computers?
I know that putting a much more powerful CPU usually end up with a limited performance gains due to other bottle necks. Like the 100 MHz 601 in a IIci or to some extent a G4/800 in a 7500/100
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
The 970 won't, so upgrade manufacturers will be faced with the unenviable task of bridging from the GigaBus to 60x/MaxBus, in effect coming up with their own companion chips. And the result would be a chronically starved 970 unless the upgrader basically included enough onboard RAM to cache system RAM more locally - if that would even work. The resulting card would not be cheap or available quickly unless something unlikely happened and a third party (or IBM) offered GigaBus-to-60x/MaxBus chips, or GigaBus-to-RapidIO and RapidIO-to-60x/MaxBus (so that there would be two companion chips linked serially).
We'll see a similar break when the G3 and G4 move to RapidIO with an onboard memory controller.
It won't be pretty.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Originally posted by Fran441:
Imagine this for a top end line up a year from now (March 2004):
Power Mac G5 Dual Processor 2.5 GHz Power PC 970
PowerBook G5 1.8 GHz Power PC 970
...
Why can't this be a realistic outlook? Apple needs this type of speed for their machines.
<hr></blockquote>
Because need does not make magic happen? Just because Apple *needs* a God-machine does not mean that IBM can make it happen. Unless there's a run of bad luck (which is highly possible), we'll *probably* see a 1.8 GHz 970 PowerMac before March 2004.
[quote]
i think your quite realistic about this, but, according to your own comments about my previous post, aren't these specs a little pessimistic? <hr></blockquote>
Yea gods! And next week, Apple develops teleportation. Let's be a *tiny* bit realistic.
What's the fastest clockspeed of any desktop processor that IBM produces at the moment? Now you expect IBM to top that with a completely *new* processor produced on half a shoestring (which is *good* - it means its a lot less likely to be cancelled).
Expect what IBM has always produced. Solid, not flashy, incremental improvements. Going to the .09 will probably take about a year. I believe that's about what it took Intel, who probably spent 10 times what IBM is spending on it.
If we can get a 2.5 GHz 970 by March 2005, I'll be a happy camper. After all, I'd say if Intel is only getting twice the performance for probably 20 times the investment, its AIM that's the winner, not Intel.
<strong>A 970 upgrade (if possible) would probably be underwhelming, as the 970 usually has 6.4GB/s of usuable bandwidth (3.2GB/s in each direction), but the G4's MPX bus can only supply 166MHz at 64bits wide, or 1.3GB/s total.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bus has been starving the processors since the dual 1 Ghz, so its no use putting a 970 in one of those machines which is top of the line right now.
<strong>I can see G4 upgrades working because the G4 supports both MaxBus and the 60x bus, which makes it theoretically compatible with every machine back to the 6100/60. The G3, of course, supports the 60x bus exclusively.
The 970 won't, so upgrade manufacturers will be faced with the unenviable task of bridging from the GigaBus to 60x/MaxBus, in effect coming up with their own companion chips. And the result would be a chronically starved 970 unless the upgrader basically included enough onboard RAM to cache system RAM more locally - if that would even work. The resulting card would not be cheap or available quickly unless something unlikely happened and a third party (or IBM) offered GigaBus-to-60x/MaxBus chips, or GigaBus-to-RapidIO and RapidIO-to-60x/MaxBus (so that there would be two companion chips linked serially).
We'll see a similar break when the G3 and G4 move to RapidIO with an onboard memory controller.
It won't be pretty.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
In otherwords...
Try putting a NASCAR style engine on a Yugo... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dave
<strong>
1887 68020
1988 68030</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I thought we'd been stuck with the G4 for a long time... :eek:
Three things
1) They're called BIG Blue for a reason. They have a market cap that is 20% larger than that of Intel. Additionally, they've got assets of about $84 billion, Intel $43 billion.
2) "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM."
3) You make it sound like IBM just the other day said, "Hey, you know that 0.09 micron process sounds like a good idea, maybe we should look into it."
My point is IBM has been making preparations for 0.09 for a while. They have a huge amount of assets to make the transition. Perhaps most importantly, IBM will make the transition faster, better and cheaper than Intel. Big Blue is well managed, on the war path, and firing on all cylinders. They're kicking butt with Linux, they're nibbling away at Sun, and they're about to shove the Power4 family into Intel where the sun don't shine.
J
Steve Jobs - "We're going to be kicking ass."
<strong>
2) "No one ever got fired for buying from IBM."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irony abounds. This was the line that kept the Mac out of the corporate world in the first place. It was the IBM PC that established x86 as "de rigueur" for business. Let's hope Big Blue can do it again with the 970 and its descendants!