Everyone should keep in mind that Apple and IBM are in the process of developing 2 lines of PPC at the same time. So they can catch up to Intel/AMD. This has been common knowledge for some time.
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.
I don't recall the exact details, it has been awhile, but I believe I got the information from this site or through this site. (link in the news or something). As far as I remember it was not about fab size per say, but about the next generataion (G6) and that Apple was funding the push.
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.
2 lines, meaning PPC 97x and PPC 37x or something. not "production lines" or anything.
This sounds incredible! Seems like Apple's horse is about to win the race! Way cool!
Which race? The race for the fastest CPU you mean? Apple has been ahead in that race before, and no doubt will be again, but there is no "winning" in the race because the race never ends. Even Moors law still has a few years left in it, and who knows what will come after. Do you really think Intel will just throw up their hands and surrender because IBM manages to make a CPU a few MHz faster? Why would they, IBM hasn't even though they are currently outpaced by the Pentium and have been for years.
Or perhaps you mean the race for platform dominance, in which case it will take a lot more than fast CPU's to do that given that years of having a more stable and user friendly OS hasn't made much difference. And again, if the race is to be deemed "over" I think Intel won - all our hopes are pinned on the theory that the race will go on indefinitely.
I am curious as well about these claims. We ordered an xServe soon after the announcement and our date (I just checked the order) is currently "on or before 3/31/04".
>>I wouldn't put too much into that date. We just recieved an order (03.04.2004) that was supposed to arrive on or before the SAME DATE !
But you are dealing with the G5 Xserve ! As far as I've heard they are having problems getting those computers to a sellable state...though that pretty much describes every product ever made. There is always problems leading up to the actual ready-to-ship date.
Which race? The race for the fastest CPU you mean? Apple has been ahead in that race before, and no doubt will be again, but there is no "winning" in the race because the race never ends. Even Moors law still has a few years left in it, and who knows what will come after. Do you really think Intel will just throw up their hands and surrender because IBM manages to make a CPU a few MHz faster? Why would they, IBM hasn't even though they are currently outpaced by the Pentium and have been for years.
Or perhaps you mean the race for platform dominance, in which case it will take a lot more than fast CPU's to do that given that years of having a more stable and user friendly OS hasn't made much difference. And again, if the race is to be deemed "over" I think Intel won - all our hopes are pinned on the theory that the race will go on indefinitely.
Socrates
No, I mean the race about Apple's processor choice (IBM vs. Motorola vs. Intel). Apple is going to win in more than one aspect:
1. 65nm processors will run much faster and cooler and consume less power
2. 65nm processors can be used to make wicked fast PowerBooks
3. 65nm processors will be much cheaper (!), since lots more of them can be produced on one single silicium waver
4. Apple will gain reputation to have outrun the Intel side of the fence and will (truly) have the fastest Personal Computer in the world
5. Apple will gain reputation to deliver the fastest notebooks out there with long battery times
6. Apple will switch the entire product line to the G5 and will be able to lower its prices, since G5s will suddenly be much cheaper than G4 processors (130nm or 90nm) from Motorola
All in all, this looks pretty good for Apple. If Intel really gets stuck at its current speed and has problems to get those Prescotts out; Apple and IBM could be the big winners in this game in just some months time...
... I just like to see Apple win... Even if it's only for a limited time... Sorry if that is a sin...
If Intel really gets stuck at its current speed and has problems to get those Prescotts out; Apple and IBM could be the big winners in this game in just some months time...
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process. (As distinguished from producing memory chips or simple embedded processor designs.) If IBM truely has "taped out" a 65nm CPU they already have a process and could be in production of that processor in 6-9 mos (judging by the time the 90nm 970FX took from taping out). That would mean 65nm this year.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any complicated CPU designs from Intel until perhaps late 2005 (although they may have other designs in production before then).
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process.
Right, but I guess Intel has already in the works such a design. By the way, here is an Intel-like roadmap delirium.
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process. (As distinguished from producing memory chips or simple embedded processor designs.) If IBM truely has "taped out" a 65nm CPU they already have a process and could be in production of that processor in 6-9 mos (judging by the time the 90nm 970FX took from taping out). That would mean 65nm this year.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any complicated CPU designs from Intel until perhaps late 2005 (although they may have other designs in production before then).
But somehow, won't they still make it bigger, with more Mhz, and still use more power? Let's hope they back off that bandwagon, producing a chip that roughly .1 percent faster (BUT STILL BIGGER !)
Comments
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Everyone should keep in mind that Apple and IBM are in the process of developing 2 lines of PPC at the same time. So they can catch up to Intel/AMD. This has been common knowledge for some time.
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.
Originally posted by onlooker
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.
I don't recall the exact details, it has been awhile, but I believe I got the information from this site or through this site. (link in the news or something). As far as I remember it was not about fab size per say, but about the next generataion (G6) and that Apple was funding the push.
Originally posted by onlooker
Did IBM mention that they were going to keep doing that at some point? Developing 2 lines for Apple simultaneously that is. I ask that because all I recall personally was that IBM had that 130nm fab running somewhere, and then there was fishkill which would be the 90nm fab, but it (fishkill) was new at the time I thought.
2 lines, meaning PPC 97x and PPC 37x or something. not "production lines" or anything.
Originally posted by Yankeedoodle
This sounds incredible! Seems like Apple's horse is about to win the race! Way cool!
Which race? The race for the fastest CPU you mean? Apple has been ahead in that race before, and no doubt will be again, but there is no "winning" in the race because the race never ends. Even Moors law still has a few years left in it, and who knows what will come after. Do you really think Intel will just throw up their hands and surrender because IBM manages to make a CPU a few MHz faster? Why would they, IBM hasn't even though they are currently outpaced by the Pentium and have been for years.
Or perhaps you mean the race for platform dominance, in which case it will take a lot more than fast CPU's to do that given that years of having a more stable and user friendly OS hasn't made much difference. And again, if the race is to be deemed "over" I think Intel won - all our hopes are pinned on the theory that the race will go on indefinitely.
Socrates
Originally posted by atomicham
I am curious as well about these claims. We ordered an xServe soon after the announcement and our date (I just checked the order) is currently "on or before 3/31/04".
>>I wouldn't put too much into that date. We just recieved an order (03.04.2004) that was supposed to arrive on or before the SAME DATE !
But you are dealing with the G5 Xserve ! As far as I've heard they are having problems getting those computers to a sellable state...though that pretty much describes every product ever made. There is always problems leading up to the actual ready-to-ship date.
-walloo.
Originally posted by Socrates
Which race? The race for the fastest CPU you mean? Apple has been ahead in that race before, and no doubt will be again, but there is no "winning" in the race because the race never ends. Even Moors law still has a few years left in it, and who knows what will come after. Do you really think Intel will just throw up their hands and surrender because IBM manages to make a CPU a few MHz faster? Why would they, IBM hasn't even though they are currently outpaced by the Pentium and have been for years.
Or perhaps you mean the race for platform dominance, in which case it will take a lot more than fast CPU's to do that given that years of having a more stable and user friendly OS hasn't made much difference. And again, if the race is to be deemed "over" I think Intel won - all our hopes are pinned on the theory that the race will go on indefinitely.
Socrates
No, I mean the race about Apple's processor choice (IBM vs. Motorola vs. Intel). Apple is going to win in more than one aspect:
1. 65nm processors will run much faster and cooler and consume less power
2. 65nm processors can be used to make wicked fast PowerBooks
3. 65nm processors will be much cheaper (!), since lots more of them can be produced on one single silicium waver
4. Apple will gain reputation to have outrun the Intel side of the fence and will (truly) have the fastest Personal Computer in the world
5. Apple will gain reputation to deliver the fastest notebooks out there with long battery times
6. Apple will switch the entire product line to the G5 and will be able to lower its prices, since G5s will suddenly be much cheaper than G4 processors (130nm or 90nm) from Motorola
All in all, this looks pretty good for Apple. If Intel really gets stuck at its current speed and has problems to get those Prescotts out; Apple and IBM could be the big winners in this game in just some months time...
... I just like to see Apple win... Even if it's only for a limited time... Sorry if that is a sin...
Originally posted by Yankeedoodle
If Intel really gets stuck at its current speed and has problems to get those Prescotts out; Apple and IBM could be the big winners in this game in just some months time...
I doubt Intel would leave IBM alone in this race. Intel expects to be the first company to have 65 nm process in manufacturing by 2005.
Originally posted by msantti
Its hard to believe we are talking about 65nm when it seems like Apple and IBM are barely getting 90nm chips out the door.
Such is the inevitable march of progress...
Originally posted by PB
I doubt Intel would leave IBM alone in this race. Intel expects to be the first company to have 65 nm process in manufacturing by 2005.
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process. (As distinguished from producing memory chips or simple embedded processor designs.) If IBM truely has "taped out" a 65nm CPU they already have a process and could be in production of that processor in 6-9 mos (judging by the time the 90nm 970FX took from taping out). That would mean 65nm this year.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any complicated CPU designs from Intel until perhaps late 2005 (although they may have other designs in production before then).
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process.
Right, but I guess Intel has already in the works such a design. By the way, here is an Intel-like roadmap delirium.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
The article you point to refers to Intel's development of a 65nm process which means they'd still have to develop a CPU design that works on that process. (As distinguished from producing memory chips or simple embedded processor designs.) If IBM truely has "taped out" a 65nm CPU they already have a process and could be in production of that processor in 6-9 mos (judging by the time the 90nm 970FX took from taping out). That would mean 65nm this year.
I think it's unlikely we'll see any complicated CPU designs from Intel until perhaps late 2005 (although they may have other designs in production before then).
But somehow, won't they still make it bigger, with more Mhz, and still use more power? Let's hope they back off that bandwagon, producing a chip that roughly .1 percent faster (BUT STILL BIGGER !)
-walloo.