That would put Apple in the same position they're in now. They need to have a clear delineation between their consumer lineup and Powermacs. Sure this isn't popular with consumers but that's the biz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they should. Nobody wants a G4 powered computer, when the 970 arrives. Performance difference between MPC7457/ PPC970 is too big.
I say, 970 across the line, should no problem:
iBook/ eMac 800MHz
Powerbook/ iMac 1/ 1.2GHz
xServe 1.5GHz (single/ dual)
Power Mac 1.5/ 2/ 2.5GHz (dual)
xStation 2/ 2.5GHz (quad)
The complete line stay compete against every x86 powered machine.
The iMac 1GHz has DDR-RAM, why? It doesn't take advantage.
If the 970 runs cool enough and if the price is comparable to that of a G4 then there is no reason not to use them across the line. There are other things Apple can use to differentiate the products - dual vs. single processor, maximum memory, bus speed, graphics chip, cache size, etc.
That said, I doubt they will switch all products over on day one. They will likely start with the towers then move on one by one across the product line till they reach the iBook. By that time the 970's follow on chip will run cool enough and be cheap enough to use in an iBook.
Steve Jobs at the end of his MacWorld NY presentation of the new products has a silk covered platform rolled out for "One more thing" he unveils a "G5" with dual 1.6 GHz IBM 970 processors.
He goes into a bake off with the most current Wintel combination and dusts it off with ease. Then he says "and that's the low end!" while dual 1.8's and dual 2.0's are brought out for the same tests. Pandemonium reigns.
That would put Apple in the same position they're in now. They need to have a clear delineation between their consumer lineup and Powermacs. Sure this isn't popular with consumers but that's the biz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I'm saying this is how it will be done, but single vs. dual could become a reasonably clear distinction between iMacs and Power Macs, with both having 970s. Add other distinctions like cache size and internal expandability, and you'd have a solid delineation.
Clearly there's likely to be some span of time when Power Macs have 970s and iMacs don't. Power Macs have to be where the 970 shows up first. Whether the PowerBook or the iMac would come next for getting bumped to the 970, however, I couldn't guess.
Here's a good question for idle, baseless speculation: Let's suppose that Power Macs, iMacs and PowerBooks are all destined to get the 970 soon. iBooks and eMacs go to 7457 G4s. How quickly could Apple rev every computer it sells, so that a painfully wide gap doesn't exist for too long between the tops and the bottoms of their various lines?
Someone wanna explain to me where these 1.6 PPC 970's are coming from? Last time I checked the 970 increased in 400 mhz increments due to the bus speed.
While your now-found optimism about Apple is great, I'm afraid that IBM stuffed up in their press release (which is why it was removed). The 970 will not reach 2.5GHz, the 970+ will. Look for that nid-late next year.
"Here still a package of rumours on the PPC 970. - Peter Sandon, father of the PPC 970 at IBM, soon will present his chip at the time of the WWDC. - Certain members ADC Select First will be entitled to a demonstration of a prototype of Mac with bottom of PPC 970 - APPLE is finalizing the development tools pouroptimiser the code for chip 970. They would be already "PPC 98" Ready - There is beta advanced version of Panther 64 trés Bits. And to finish, of the news of IBM. - Whereas they were persuaded that the PPC 970 would not reach the 2,5 Ghz in engraving 0,13 Microns, it is the case. They have so much in advance, that the 970 would be already produced in significant volumes. - the processor 2,5 Ghz with 0,13 Microns has only one defect. It consumes 64 Watts and dissipates much heat. But it is not worse than Pentiun IV or one Athlon. It will however be a true challenge to propose a machine with 2 processors for a total of 128 W!"
I would imagine that IBM will get most if not all of the 2.5's right away. However that does leave room for the possability of Dual 2.0's in the high end PM. That would be more economical, better yields and lower price, for Apple to sell to the public. We will have the 2.5's + soon enough when they move to the 0.09 process.
<strong> It consumes 64 Watts and dissipates much heat. But it is not worse than Pentiun IV or one Athlon. It will however be a true challenge to propose a machine with 2 processors for a total of 128 W!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, Apple Easy-Bake Ovens ...
Who says this is a problem?!?!?!
Away with famine!
Away with the dull drudgery of work-a-day, mid afternoon chocolate bar runs.
Use the new Apple Easy-Bake Generation Five!
Now with 64bits of Flavor
I just can't see it, sorry; maybe I'm totally wrong and Apple will find a way to wind tunnel these puppies in a work station kinda way, but I think Apple would probably go with a much cooler dual two giggers, and leave the 2.5Ghz refrigeration problems to IBM.
<strong>Someone wanna explain to me where these 1.6 PPC 970's are coming from? Last time I checked the 970 increased in 400 mhz increments due to the bus speed.
1.2, 1.8....</strong><hr></blockquote>
well lets count: 400... 800... 1200... 1600... 2000... 2400... heej... there is no 1800Mhz in your 400Mhz incremental list
what do you actually think the busspeed is? i thought i read somewhere that it would be something like 400Mhz. so 1,6Ghz is 4x and 1,8Ghz is 4.5x busspeed. should work
<strong>what do you actually think the busspeed is? i thought i read somewhere that it would be something like 400Mhz. so 1,6Ghz is 4x and 1,8Ghz is 4.5x busspeed. should work</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bus architecture on the 970 is different to most buses in that it scales with the clockspeed of the processor. The bus frequency is just a quarter the frequency of the main clock. It's also a DDR bus.
Anyway you end up with 300 MHz at 1.2 GHz, 350 MHz at 1.4, 400 at 1.6, 450 at 1.8, etc.
In the end I don't think this is particularly surprising news. When Steve said 'enough stuff for two keynotes' I thnk the writing was on the wall.
The 970 introduction is going to be interesting in that there will undoubtedly be a few twists in the 64 bit OSX that developers will need to know about....even if its just to reassure them that their apps will still work....probably. Of course once the developers are briefed there will be leaks and the use of the 970 will be confirmed beyond doubt. The minimal PowerMac sales will finally grind to a dead stop until the new machines are released and Apple must know this. Will Apple pre-announce at this stage? Are they not expecting to be able to show them at NYMW or will they already have been announced? Interesting times.
The ratio of laptops/stationary computers has increased both for WinBoxes and Mac so it is a true statement.
What if SJ would have stated "The year of the tower computer" and having this seminal event heralded by the G4 speed bump from 1.25 to 1.42 GHz <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
The tower is about power and that will not be there as long as we have the G4, inside.
I remember the Fiat X/9 a very stylish sports car with mid mounted engine and everytihing, still it could not keep up with many Volvo station vagons as the engine was such a limp little thing... why did I come to think about that hmmm
Comments
<strong>iMacs will NOT have 970's
That would put Apple in the same position they're in now. They need to have a clear delineation between their consumer lineup and Powermacs. Sure this isn't popular with consumers but that's the biz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But they should. Nobody wants a G4 powered computer, when the 970 arrives. Performance difference between MPC7457/ PPC970 is too big.
I say, 970 across the line, should no problem:
iBook/ eMac 800MHz
Powerbook/ iMac 1/ 1.2GHz
xServe 1.5GHz (single/ dual)
Power Mac 1.5/ 2/ 2.5GHz (dual)
xStation 2/ 2.5GHz (quad)
The complete line stay compete against every x86 powered machine.
The iMac 1GHz has DDR-RAM, why? It doesn't take advantage.
If the MPC7457-RM arrives (Q3/04??) then it has.
The difference between these models should be:
1. price tag
2. features
3. expandability
Not performance. Apple hasn't yet enough.
That said, I doubt they will switch all products over on day one. They will likely start with the towers then move on one by one across the product line till they reach the iBook. By that time the 970's follow on chip will run cool enough and be cheap enough to use in an iBook.
"de uitzondering bevestigd de regel"<hr></blockquote>
Actually, we say
" de uitzondering bevestigt de regel "
I know, most of you couldn't care less and this is SO off topic, but hey, it's a free world :cool:
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Dylsexic Manupilator ]</p>
He goes into a bake off with the most current Wintel combination and dusts it off with ease. Then he says "and that's the low end!" while dual 1.8's and dual 2.0's are brought out for the same tests. Pandemonium reigns.
...
I like that.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>iMacs will NOT have 970's
That would put Apple in the same position they're in now. They need to have a clear delineation between their consumer lineup and Powermacs. Sure this isn't popular with consumers but that's the biz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I'm saying this is how it will be done, but single vs. dual could become a reasonably clear distinction between iMacs and Power Macs, with both having 970s. Add other distinctions like cache size and internal expandability, and you'd have a solid delineation.
Clearly there's likely to be some span of time when Power Macs have 970s and iMacs don't. Power Macs have to be where the 970 shows up first. Whether the PowerBook or the iMac would come next for getting bumped to the 970, however, I couldn't guess.
Here's a good question for idle, baseless speculation: Let's suppose that Power Macs, iMacs and PowerBooks are all destined to get the 970 soon. iBooks and eMacs go to 7457 G4s. How quickly could Apple rev every computer it sells, so that a painfully wide gap doesn't exist for too long between the tops and the bottoms of their various lines?
1.2, 1.8....
<strong>
While your now-found optimism about Apple is great, I'm afraid that IBM stuffed up in their press release (which is why it was removed). The 970 will not reach 2.5GHz, the 970+ will. Look for that nid-late next year.
ZDNet get it right!
Not to say that the 970 won't get above 1.8GHz, but it won't go to 2.5GHz (perhaps 2.0-2.1).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Geez, well don't that just put an end to the Circle Jerk!
<img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">
From <a href="http://www.macbidouille.com,"; target="_blank">www.macbidouille.com,</a> translated with google:
"Here still a package of rumours on the PPC 970. - Peter Sandon, father of the PPC 970 at IBM, soon will present his chip at the time of the WWDC. - Certain members ADC Select First will be entitled to a demonstration of a prototype of Mac with bottom of PPC 970 - APPLE is finalizing the development tools pouroptimiser the code for chip 970. They would be already "PPC 98" Ready - There is beta advanced version of Panther 64 trés Bits. And to finish, of the news of IBM. - Whereas they were persuaded that the PPC 970 would not reach the 2,5 Ghz in engraving 0,13 Microns, it is the case. They have so much in advance, that the 970 would be already produced in significant volumes. - the processor 2,5 Ghz with 0,13 Microns has only one defect. It consumes 64 Watts and dissipates much heat. But it is not worse than Pentiun IV or one Athlon. It will however be a true challenge to propose a machine with 2 processors for a total of 128 W!"
<strong> It consumes 64 Watts and dissipates much heat. But it is not worse than Pentiun IV or one Athlon. It will however be a true challenge to propose a machine with 2 processors for a total of 128 W!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, Apple Easy-Bake Ovens ...
Who says this is a problem?!?!?!
Away with famine!
Away with the dull drudgery of work-a-day, mid afternoon chocolate bar runs.
Use the new Apple Easy-Bake Generation Five!
Now with 64bits of Flavor
I just can't see it, sorry; maybe I'm totally wrong and Apple will find a way to wind tunnel these puppies in a work station kinda way, but I think Apple would probably go with a much cooler dual two giggers, and leave the 2.5Ghz refrigeration problems to IBM.
Just a thought.
<strong>Someone wanna explain to me where these 1.6 PPC 970's are coming from? Last time I checked the 970 increased in 400 mhz increments due to the bus speed.
1.2, 1.8....</strong><hr></blockquote>
well lets count: 400... 800... 1200... 1600... 2000... 2400... heej... there is no 1800Mhz in your 400Mhz incremental list
what do you actually think the busspeed is? i thought i read somewhere that it would be something like 400Mhz. so 1,6Ghz is 4x and 1,8Ghz is 4.5x busspeed. should work
IBM's Peter Sandon will talk about the 970 at the WWDC;
Apple has a 970 prototype running and is optimizing the code, PPC 98 is ready (?)
970 at .13 micron runs at 2.5GHz and then dissipates 64watts;
Panther 64bit exists in a beta version and is very advanced.
Pim
<strong>Macbidouille has some interesting news:
IBM's Peter Sandon will talk about the 970 at the WWDC;
Apple has a 970 prototype running and is optimizing the code, PPC 98 is ready (?)
970 at .13 micron runs at 2.5GHz and then dissipates 64watts;
Panther 64bit exists in a beta version and is very advanced.
Pim</strong><hr></blockquote>
pim, sc_markt mentioned that 5 posts before with a nice almost unreadable translation into anglofrench, thanks for the synopsis
<strong>what do you actually think the busspeed is? i thought i read somewhere that it would be something like 400Mhz. so 1,6Ghz is 4x and 1,8Ghz is 4.5x busspeed. should work</strong><hr></blockquote>
The bus architecture on the 970 is different to most buses in that it scales with the clockspeed of the processor. The bus frequency is just a quarter the frequency of the main clock. It's also a DDR bus.
Anyway you end up with 300 MHz at 1.2 GHz, 350 MHz at 1.4, 400 at 1.6, 450 at 1.8, etc.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Stratosfear ]</p>
The 970 introduction is going to be interesting in that there will undoubtedly be a few twists in the 64 bit OSX that developers will need to know about....even if its just to reassure them that their apps will still work....probably. Of course once the developers are briefed there will be leaks and the use of the 970 will be confirmed beyond doubt. The minimal PowerMac sales will finally grind to a dead stop until the new machines are released and Apple must know this. Will Apple pre-announce at this stage? Are they not expecting to be able to show them at NYMW or will they already have been announced? Interesting times.
The ratio of laptops/stationary computers has increased both for WinBoxes and Mac so it is a true statement.
What if SJ would have stated "The year of the tower computer" and having this seminal event heralded by the G4 speed bump from 1.25 to 1.42 GHz <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
The tower is about power and that will not be there as long as we have the G4, inside.
I remember the Fiat X/9 a very stylish sports car with mid mounted engine and everytihing, still it could not keep up with many Volvo station vagons as the engine was such a limp little thing... why did I come to think about that hmmm