Ok with the Powerbook processor thing, another eye catching machine that might have a significant CPU change is the Powermac. So what Processor will we see next in the Powermacs?
EDIT: This probably needs to be moved to future hardware. If so, can a mod/admin do so?
Comments
Originally posted by Programmer
You didn't put any x86's on the list!
for myself, ive not yet seen convincing evidence that the next powermac will have a "processor" at all...
just what century is this anyway
Originally posted by Placebo
Well, I'm sort of hoping that if the 970 really can't get faster, Apple should consider AMD64.
What makes you think AMD64 will get any faster?
Originally posted by DHagan4755
The next processor in the Power Mac will likely be the PowerPC 970FX running at 2.8GHz. I don't think the PowerPC 970GX will be quite ready yet.
That sounds right.
Originally posted by gelosilente
I really hope that next powermac are dual 970MP!!
OMFG it's DUAL DUALS! IT'S LIKE TEH MATREICKS!
Originally posted by quagmire
I am wondering how many people don't know what the 970MP and 970GX is. Well the 970MP is a dual core chip supposed to be clocked at 3 Ghz. The GX is the single core version of the MP.
Which means that you don't get any GX chips untill the MP is in production. As I understand it the GX will be an MP chip in which one of the cores does not function, just as the single core Power4 processors are dual core processors which only have one functioning core. This is a way to minimize loss in revenue and increase product yield.
Originally posted by @homenow
Which means that you don't get any GX chips untill the MP is in production. As I understand it the GX will be an MP chip in which one of the cores does not function, just as the single core Power4 processors are dual core processors which only have one functioning core. This is a way to minimize loss in revenue and increase product yield.
That's not necessarily true. They could release single- and dual-core variants easily enough. The truly single-core CPUs could be planned for, rather than just being whatever didn't make the grade as a dual-core CPU, and they'd take up half the space on the wafers, greatly increasing yields and reducing costs.
The POWER4 strategy was just a way to milk a little extra money out of an intrinsically low-yielding line late in its life. For a PowerPC, low yields simply aren't acceptable. That's why IBM Semi hasn't been making money: Mass-produced CPUs have to yield well to be profitable, and IBM had lots of issues with 970 yields.
I'm looking forward to seeing a core built with the tech that went into the Power5, given that CPU's astonishing performance lead on, well, damn near everything.
Originally posted by Amorph
The POWER4 strategy was just a way to milk a little extra money out of an intrinsically low-yielding line late in its life. For a PowerPC, low yields simply aren't acceptable. That's why IBM Semi hasn't been making money: Mass-produced CPUs have to yield well to be profitable, and IBM had lots of issues with 970 yields.
And since the 970's are having yield problems, unless they are corrected then the single/dual strategy for the Power4 works for the 970MP as well. The main difference is that Apple has a logical product for these chips in the iMac which would probably need higher yields than regular "yield problems" would result in. Then again IBM could have a low power, lower cost 970 in the works or mearly an update to the existing 970 to fill the iMac bill. Then Apple could use the "singles" in their low end 970's (turning the $1,499 PM into a dual processor, single core) and save the dual cores for the higher end computers.
I think that the strategy all depends on what the realities of the manufacturing process are when IBM gets the chips on the production line.
IMO, the PM's are great machines, but are getting pretty stale.
There has to be some price readjustment by Apple or the CPU and GPU need to be bumped up.
I vote for the faster 970fx as the dual cores won't be out till next year.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
I vote for the faster 970fx as the dual cores won't be out till next year.
You are surely giving us a WAG(Wild Ass Guess) right?
I think we'll have dual cores in Q3. But truth be told this is Apple. You may be right *sigh*
I think we should see 970GX first and then 970MP. Apple should get a new Mobo out with he PCIe trimmings and then build on that with 970MP systems
Originally posted by hmurchison
You are surely giving us a WAG(Wild Ass Guess) right?
I think we'll have dual cores in Q3. But truth be told this is Apple. You may be right *sigh*
I think we should see 970GX first and then 970MP. Apple should get a new Mobo out with he PCIe trimmings and then build on that with 970MP systems
There's no 'Ass' in my guess. Until Intel intros a dual core, I doubt you'll see such a beast in any Apple product. And we are talking about Apple products not IBM, correct?
2005 is here and Apple has yet to release anything faster than 2.5GHz. I don't think you'll see the dual cores in the current incarnation of PM's but most likely a redesigned case when the dual cores show up. I'm sure the current case costs too much and Apple needs to get some price savings out of these computers. I'm really curious as to what Apple's next move will be with the PM's. They are a dying platform right now as seen by the ever diminishing units sold every qtr. Apple should just cut the prices on these systems for the rest of the year and before the next generation with dual core come out. JMHO.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antares.html
Originally posted by JCG
And since the 970's are having yield problems, unless they are corrected then the single/dual strategy for the Power4 works for the 970MP as well.
IBM spent all of last year correcting them. Given that the iMac now ships with the G5, and Apple just sold a boatload of them, they seem to have made quite a bit of progress.
The POWER4 was never even priced or designed to yield well. That's the difference.
I think that the strategy all depends on what the realities of the manufacturing process are when IBM gets the chips on the production line.
Certainly. But in a chip intended for high yields (i.e., intended for use in Apple products) it makes more sense for a single-core CPU to be truly single core. If IBM doesn't get high yields, they work on the process until they do.
And in response to DVD_Junkie, Apple went dual-processor early. They'll go dual-core whenever IBM or Freescale gives them a reason to, no matter what Intel is or is not doing.
Originally posted by quagmire
The 970MP should be in production now or soon to be. So we should see dual core this year. Why is Intel all of a sudden if Intel can't do it no one can? Intel sucks and they do not even have a 64 bit processor out yet. IBM will be the first to come out with dual core processors. And yes, DVD Junkie your guess is pretty much a guess. You have no facts to support your guess. While I believe the MP will be the next Pmac processor. For some reason why the MP isn't ready the GX should.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antares.html
Well, Intel does have 64 bit processors called the Itanium. They were not the first with 64bit but neither was IBM the first. I believe SGI and SUN had 64bit processors years before Intel's Itanium.
Originally posted by DVD_Junkie
Well, Intel does have 64 bit processors called the Itanium. They were not the first with 64bit but neither was IBM the first. I believe SGI and SUN had 64bit processors years before Intel's Itanium.
I know that but, those are server chips. Intel won't be the first with dual core chips. IBM's Power4 and Power5 are dual core already. But, as I said those are server chips. I never said IBM was first with 64 bit. I believe IBM will make the first dual core chips for the consumer. I am saying that Intel doesn't have a 64 bit Pentium. There are now prototypes now though. Ranging from the P$ to the Celeron.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if IBM used the info it gained from AMD in SOI tech to put into developing a POWER5-based chip. It just means that Apple has to wait for a long time before the next 'big thing'.
The one main element that scares me in this argument above is that after a collection of Thinksecret and Register articles about the Antares in August, nothing has been heard since. Silence could, for all those Rumsfeldites, be an absense of evidence, hopefully not evidence of absence