I have no doubt it will be a nice chip when it comes out but I think you guys should get realistic. 95% PC market share is not gonna evaporate just because Apple runs a better chip. The key to the computing industry is consolidation not innovation and most people use windows plus Apple computers are just too plain expensive for your average joe, not to mention the costs of switching software!
Enjoy the prospect of a new faster chip for the Apple platform, by all means - but keep it in perspective. The MHz wars were conducted between Intel and AMD, both PC suppliers, not Apple.
64 bit is not a real advantage for Apple now. But it's not a disavantage either, it would be a cool transtion.
Things tend to appear different in the X86 world : the itanium is not compatbile with X86 and the opteron will have a bad beginning , very few software optimized for it, and a very mid support from microsoft of this chip.
Add very disapointing yields : the best yield show to the public was 1,4 ghz.
So we have a ppc 970 that appear to be more powerfull than the opteron and an other company that have no smooth transition : Intel. I bet that in three of four years, that Apple will have the good chip.
Not to disrupt this thread (anymore), but I wonder if someone could explain in low-tech terms what a 64-bit processor means for software. Apple would have to wrie a 64-bit version of its operating system, right? Is that easier or harder with OSX/Unix? And I know the 970 runs both 32 and 64, but what would it mean to run 'old' software on the new processor?
<strong>People are forgetting something. Most desktop computers only have 2 - 4 RAM slots. That means the price of 512 MB RAM isn't important. What's important is the price of 1GB or 2GB RAM and that is significatly more expensive.
Furthermore when I bought a computer in 2000 it shipped with 256 MB of RAM. To buy the same level now I would get 512 MB after 3 years. Intel is right when they say RAM really isn't advancing that fast. Very few markets actually need 64 bit computing and a lot that do already use 64 bit hardware.
[quote] Actaully, people are forgetting the REAL most important factor, those who NEED 2-4gigs can AFFORD it whatever it costs.
<hr></blockquote>
S'right.
A friend of mine said, 'You're buying seconds'. But for some people, those seconds add up. Take Pixar's move to Intel boxes. Or an Athlon 3D workstation vs a G4 one.
970 will address the whole question of scale. Apple can do duals to Octos. Apple as a workstation player? Arrives.
I'm sure someone with 20 K to drop on one won't mind if the performance argument is worth it to him.
Here's the reality of the situation. IBM is only going to make kick ass CPUs that are 64 bit. Apple needs a kick ass CPU. Sure they could get by with 32 like Intel is doing but in this world they have to take what IBM is willing to go in on. Therefor we have a 64 CPU. Everything else is moot.
No OS re-write required to use a 970. The 970 will run existing 32-bit software just fine with no speed penalty according to IBM press and last fall's presentation.
The OS would need to be recompiled and somewhat tweaked to enable it to use the full 64-bit capability and run 64-bit compiled apps, but that should not be a traumatic undertaking. OS X's hardware abstraction happens quite low in the code base and is handled within the Mach layer which also happens to be quite object-oriented and easier to maintain because of that.
The vast majority of the OS X codebase doesn't even need to be 64-bit code. That will allow Apple to leave quite a bit of the work spread out over several years if it is really required at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
application might not need to be recompiled, but os x has to be rewrite, at least on interrupt and memory management part. i am not sure about the file system. maybe since os x has microkernel -- mach, it needs no rewrite on memory management. i am not sure about it.
Mac OS X will also need a recompile for optimisation purposes: what works fast on the G4+ isn't necessarily the fastest on the 970. Longer pipeline, more execution units, higher bandwidth, etc..
<strong>Try some reality. PC3200 memory, DDR-400, which would provide some of the bandwidth necessary for the 970 is selling for about $150/512MB stick. 4GB of RAM equals ~$1200. This is not PC133 pricing.</strong><hr></blockquote>Here's a wacky idea: L4 Cache anyone? Well not exactly but... It seems that there is a trend toward deeper memory architecture.
Would it be possible to code a memory controller and architecture to support multiple speeds of RAM within the same level of cache?
Also, a discussion of what to do with 64bit addressing isn't complete without attention being paid to multiprocessing and/or clustering. If I recall correctly, the G4 is limited to 2-way configuations but the 970 is 16 way. (?)
<strong>Here's a wacky idea: L4 Cache anyone? Well not exactly but... It seems that there is a trend toward deeper memory architecture.
Would it be possible to code a memory controller and architecture to support multiple speeds of RAM within the same level of cache?
Also, a discussion of what to do with 64bit addressing isn't complete without attention being paid to multiprocessing and/or clustering. If I recall correctly, the G4 is limited to 2-way configuations but the 970 is 16 way. (?)
Pixar needs terabytes of RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha a rendering machine by apple for pixar with terabytes of memory would cost so much that it would make MS blush
Comments
Enjoy the prospect of a new faster chip for the Apple platform, by all means - but keep it in perspective. The MHz wars were conducted between Intel and AMD, both PC suppliers, not Apple.
Things tend to appear different in the X86 world : the itanium is not compatbile with X86 and the opteron will have a bad beginning , very few software optimized for it, and a very mid support from microsoft of this chip.
Add very disapointing yields : the best yield show to the public was 1,4 ghz.
So we have a ppc 970 that appear to be more powerfull than the opteron and an other company that have no smooth transition : Intel. I bet that in three of four years, that Apple will have the good chip.
<strong>People are forgetting something. Most desktop computers only have 2 - 4 RAM slots. That means the price of 512 MB RAM isn't important. What's important is the price of 1GB or 2GB RAM and that is significatly more expensive.
Furthermore when I bought a computer in 2000 it shipped with 256 MB of RAM. To buy the same level now I would get 512 MB after 3 years. Intel is right when they say RAM really isn't advancing that fast. Very few markets actually need 64 bit computing and a lot that do already use 64 bit hardware.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Telomar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actaully, people are forgetting the REAL most important factor, those who NEED 2-4gigs can AFFORD it whatever it costs.
<hr></blockquote>
S'right.
A friend of mine said, 'You're buying seconds'. But for some people, those seconds add up. Take Pixar's move to Intel boxes. Or an Athlon 3D workstation vs a G4 one.
970 will address the whole question of scale. Apple can do duals to Octos. Apple as a workstation player? Arrives.
I'm sure someone with 20 K to drop on one won't mind if the performance argument is worth it to him.
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>
No OS re-write required to use a 970. The 970 will run existing 32-bit software just fine with no speed penalty according to IBM press and last fall's presentation.
The OS would need to be recompiled and somewhat tweaked to enable it to use the full 64-bit capability and run 64-bit compiled apps, but that should not be a traumatic undertaking. OS X's hardware abstraction happens quite low in the code base and is handled within the Mach layer which also happens to be quite object-oriented and easier to maintain because of that.
The vast majority of the OS X codebase doesn't even need to be 64-bit code. That will allow Apple to leave quite a bit of the work spread out over several years if it is really required at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
application might not need to be recompiled, but os x has to be rewrite, at least on interrupt and memory management part. i am not sure about the file system. maybe since os x has microkernel -- mach, it needs no rewrite on memory management. i am not sure about it.
<strong>Try some reality. PC3200 memory, DDR-400, which would provide some of the bandwidth necessary for the 970 is selling for about $150/512MB stick. 4GB of RAM equals ~$1200. This is not PC133 pricing.</strong><hr></blockquote>Here's a wacky idea: L4 Cache anyone? Well not exactly but... It seems that there is a trend toward deeper memory architecture.
Would it be possible to code a memory controller and architecture to support multiple speeds of RAM within the same level of cache?
Also, a discussion of what to do with 64bit addressing isn't complete without attention being paid to multiprocessing and/or clustering. If I recall correctly, the G4 is limited to 2-way configuations but the 970 is 16 way. (?)
Pixar needs terabytes of RAM.
<strong>Here's a wacky idea: L4 Cache anyone? Well not exactly but... It seems that there is a trend toward deeper memory architecture.
Would it be possible to code a memory controller and architecture to support multiple speeds of RAM within the same level of cache?
Also, a discussion of what to do with 64bit addressing isn't complete without attention being paid to multiprocessing and/or clustering. If I recall correctly, the G4 is limited to 2-way configuations but the 970 is 16 way. (?)
Pixar needs terabytes of RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha a rendering machine by apple for pixar with terabytes of memory would cost so much that it would make MS blush