The magic term "altivec TM"

vox barbaravox barbara
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Is this the proof we are hoping so much for?

Is 970 the next gen chip?



Are there any indications apple couldn't/wouldn't adopt that chip? Because of technical issues, marketing issues, price issues? Questions over questions...



If apple is going to adopt that chip in there hardware line, than a pretty old wording becomes new meaning:

"Time is a good healer."



best



[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Vox Barbara ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    I never doubted that is was Altivec in the first place.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    Well, if they started calling the SIMD unit an Altivec? one, this not only means it is really Altivec-compatible; this implies legal copyright issues have been resolved (if they ever existed). It is also a great hint at Apple because it is Apple who promoted its benefits the most and it is Apple who utilized G4s the most and it is Apple who wrote the most of Altivec-accelerated software. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    apple did a smart move by calling it "Velocity Engine" ... it doesn't matter what name the SIMD unit on tha cpu has got ... Altivec or XSET or whatever... this speed-engine is called "Velocity Engine" when it finds the way into apple products...
  • Reply 4 of 12
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I have a feeling that when Apple introduces 970 machines we will be hearing the benefits of Velocity Engine II.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>I never doubted that is was Altivec in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>You're right. IBM has explicitly used the term "AltiVec" for months now. However, the notion that the PPC 970 SIMD unit was not AltiVec came from children posting to sites like this one. The notion that IBM would fork development of the PPC into incompatible branches was always silly. More important, it would have been bad business. IBM does not do bad business.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>I have a feeling that when Apple introduces 970 machines we will be hearing the benefits of Velocity Engine II.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Based on current trends, it will be "Velocity engine extrreme"



    Man, I hope not though. I'm not personally a fan of the whole "extreme" naming thing.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    macmediamacmedia Posts: 152member
    [quote]Originally posted by Flounder:

    <strong>



    Based on current trends, it will be "Velocity engine extrreme"



    Man, I hope not though. I'm not personally a fan of the whole "extreme" naming thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What happens when you get to a 3rd-gen prpduct? Do you call it "Really Extreme", or how 'bout "Really, Really Extreme"?



    Chas

    -----------

    We're waiting...
  • Reply 8 of 12
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    [quote]Originally posted by Vox Barbara:

    [QBAre there any indications apple couldn't/wouldn't adopt that chip? Because of technical issues, marketing issues, price issues? Questions over questions...

    [/QB]<hr></blockquote>



    A friend of my uncle's cousin's son-in-law was at a cocktail party where Lou Gerstner [CotB of IBM] made a snide remark about black turtleneck sweaters. Word got back to Steve Jobs, who threw a major hissy fit, and broke all ties to IBM as a result ("I'll buy chips from them when Gerstner pulls a black turtleneck out of his butt in front of me!").



    So Apple's new plan is to use a revolutionary new chip from an old reliable supplier for their next generation of PowerMacs - the amazing PPC601 from Motorola, running at a stunning 60,000 kHz!



    :eek:



    [ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 12
    transcendental octothorpetranscendental octothorpe Posts: 188member
    [quote]Originally posted by Vox Barbara:

    <strong>Is this the proof we are hoping so much for?

    Is 970 the next gen chip?



    Are there any indications apple couldn't/wouldn't adopt that chip? Because of technical issues, marketing issues, price issues? Questions over questions...



    ...If apple is going to adopt that chip in there hardware line...

    [ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Vox Barbara ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Are people still really doubting this??



    I guess some of us are a little gun shy after being taken in by so many 'too good to be true' rumors over the last couple years.



    Apple will use the PPC970. This has been in the works for years now.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    When you've been let down this many times you kinda get used to the whole "underdog" thing. I think there will be quite a boost to the self esteem of Mac users everywhere when this thing finally hits the streets.



    Then again with the intro of Intel's new chip we'll have to start hearing PC people telling us how MHz doesn't matter ...



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 11 of 12
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider:

    <strong>I have a feeling that when Apple introduces 970 machines we will be hearing the benefits of Velocity Engine II.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The 970 is/should be a god without altivec, so any additonal benefits is just adding salt to Intel's wound
  • Reply 12 of 12
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Hey when we get SMT(Simultaneous Multithreading)



    what nifty name should Apple use for it?



    My vote is for



    "Lightrail"



    I don't think we could name the Altivec in the 970 "Altivec II" now could we because I'm assuming it's relatively unchanged.
Sign In or Register to comment.