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.
In the microprocessor realm MIPS (SGI) and Alpha (DEC) went 64-bit first in around '92. SPARC (Sun & Fujitsu) went 64-bit with the UltraSPARC in '95. HP took the PA-RISC to 64-bits in '96. IBM/Motorola spec'd the PowerPC with both 64-bit and 32-bit in '94 but didn't deliver the first 64-bit PPC until around 96-97 (620) but it was hardly used. IBM shipped the 64-bit RS64 in '97 and the POWER3 in '98. The IA-64 didn't arrive until 2001. The PPC970, as you all know, finally arrived in shipping form in 2003.
Pentium Xeon EMT64 processors are available right now.
Dell is selling them with a 64bit redhat Linux as an option. Windows XP64, which has been available as a beta for months, is due in April.
Read my above post. I didn't mean server chips. I meant chips that go in your everyday computer. There are no 64 bit Pentium 4's. Which there are now samples of ranging from the P4 to the yucky celeron.
Well this is what I now for shore, from the many sites I read daily.
Well there has bean recently a conference with a lot of the big gun processor manufactures, and some non processor manufactures as well, like Sony. They all got together to sort out what will happen in 2005. There number one point of discussion was cell technology. So what that means for apple, is at some point in 2005 IBM will bring out foreshore a cell processor (Multi core processor), there aiming for the Q2 to release them. But when is apple going to implement this technology well that?s another question. It has bean said that this transition should be easier for IBM then many of the other company, as there already have multi core Processor, for there high end server class machines, which are one of the best. As for other companies well AMD & Intel are suppose to follow suite, or should I say lead the way by bringing there consumer chips to the market in late Q2 or mid Q3 of 2005. Which is going to be first out of the blocks, no one knows. But one thing is foreshore Intel is planning to take a leaf out of IBM's book, and bring a cut down version of the Itanum and Xeon chips with 64bit technology to the desktop. This of course will be there Cell processors.
And just in case you all don't now Sony is also planning to make there next Playstation (3), is supposedly meant to be a cell processor. Weren?t they also at the conference, oh yeah that?s right they were. For the most part they said its supposed to go in Sony?s server systems, which, well I?ll be honest I did not now they made. The Playstation is meant to show its face in Japan at the end of this year, and that means there it is very likely that we will see apple bring out a multi core processor at some point. Probably going to be announced at WWDC and released in Q4.
But all company?s say this transition is quit easy to go from single core to multi core it?s just the yields subtlety, and the technology that is used too tell each core what to do.
But what is even more interesting is this:
The graphics companies are giving us some great technology at the moment, and Apple really needs to catch up with PC?s in this aria, the most. They have PCI express make a good differents to graphics speed, are there is SLI technology which is becoming cheaper, and is boosting speeds and processing power, for the most part significantly. There?s is already a similar option on its way from ATI, and a few companies have also introduced a single SLI card solution. Which at the moment is not as quick as two cards but not far off? So in my opinion it won't be long until graphics companies bring cell graphics processors, in fact I have a hunch that we will see them late this year or mid next year.
Who cares you may say but with the soon to be introduced OS X tiger which has Core image and Core Video, which run the hole apple interface from your GPU instead of CPU there will be a greater need for faster Graphics and some thing has to be dune and soon. As for the main consumer of Graphics cards the PC market, there also in need of faster GPU's as the race is constantly on for NVIDIA & ATI to be top dog of the speed stakes and games are becoming insane, and Oh yes there?s longhorn around the corner as well. Why dose long have anything to do with this, you ask because its not coming out till 2007, well Microsoft are planning to release "parts" of longhorn from now till then, in new versions of Windows XP. So just like Tiger, Longhorn is supposed to use the GPU primarily. So there fore needing fast and powerful Graphics cards.
There is one other application but on the this time Mac, that is Microsoft will be releasing with GPU's in mind, and that is Virtual PC 7.2/8 or something long those lines. One of the main features that they left out from seven was yes you gessed it, Native Graphics support. Many say that this technology will let Mac users play PC games on a Mac, at good speed, and if that?s going to happen, you will need a pretty good Graphics card to do so. And that brings me back to Tiger, I think there is more to Core Image & Video then meets the eye, because both Core Image & video technologies by pass the operating system and use the GPU to run. And there for reliving CPUs some of works load. Could windows game emulators be on the horizon, who knows but why not?
Conclusion:
There is going to be a need for big hardware upgrades in 2005 or early 2006, and with big updates to Mac and PC OS?s soon, enforcing the move forwarded. We will also see performance gain?s with current Hardware also under these new OS?s.
So I think there will be big speed bumps, probably in the form of cell processors but you can't say for shore. but at this present time there is no reason why they shouldn?t be able to. And if companies like AMD & Intel are going to launch this year with there versions, and conceals following shortly after, then it?s a realistic target that they will appear for apple this year too.
But to accompany that I think will see big changes in graphics for the Mac this year as well.
They admitted missing that target back at WWDC. The problems at the 90 nm process node caught everyone by surprise. I doubt we'll see a promise like that again anytime soon.
No, guys, the thread title is "Next Processor in Powermacs". The current processor is 2.5GHz 970FX. The next processor will be a (ta-da!) 2.667GHz 970FX.
Comments
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.
In the microprocessor realm MIPS (SGI) and Alpha (DEC) went 64-bit first in around '92. SPARC (Sun & Fujitsu) went 64-bit with the UltraSPARC in '95. HP took the PA-RISC to 64-bits in '96. IBM/Motorola spec'd the PowerPC with both 64-bit and 32-bit in '94 but didn't deliver the first 64-bit PPC until around 96-97 (620) but it was hardly used. IBM shipped the 64-bit RS64 in '97 and the POWER3 in '98. The IA-64 didn't arrive until 2001. The PPC970, as you all know, finally arrived in shipping form in 2003.
And, of course, Cray was there back in the '80s.
Originally posted by quagmire
Intel sucks and they do not even have a 64 bit processor out yet.
Pentium Xeon EMT64 processors are available right now.
Dell is selling them with a 64bit redhat Linux as an option. Windows XP64, which has been available as a beta for months, is due in April.
Originally posted by bilbo42
Pentium Xeon EMT64 processors are available right now.
Dell is selling them with a 64bit redhat Linux as an option. Windows XP64, which has been available as a beta for months, is due in April.
Read my above post. I didn't mean server chips. I meant chips that go in your everyday computer. There are no 64 bit Pentium 4's. Which there are now samples of ranging from the P4 to the yucky celeron.
Well this is what I now for shore, from the many sites I read daily.
Well there has bean recently a conference with a lot of the big gun processor manufactures, and some non processor manufactures as well, like Sony. They all got together to sort out what will happen in 2005. There number one point of discussion was cell technology. So what that means for apple, is at some point in 2005 IBM will bring out foreshore a cell processor (Multi core processor), there aiming for the Q2 to release them. But when is apple going to implement this technology well that?s another question. It has bean said that this transition should be easier for IBM then many of the other company, as there already have multi core Processor, for there high end server class machines, which are one of the best. As for other companies well AMD & Intel are suppose to follow suite, or should I say lead the way by bringing there consumer chips to the market in late Q2 or mid Q3 of 2005. Which is going to be first out of the blocks, no one knows. But one thing is foreshore Intel is planning to take a leaf out of IBM's book, and bring a cut down version of the Itanum and Xeon chips with 64bit technology to the desktop. This of course will be there Cell processors.
And just in case you all don't now Sony is also planning to make there next Playstation (3), is supposedly meant to be a cell processor. Weren?t they also at the conference, oh yeah that?s right they were. For the most part they said its supposed to go in Sony?s server systems, which, well I?ll be honest I did not now they made. The Playstation is meant to show its face in Japan at the end of this year, and that means there it is very likely that we will see apple bring out a multi core processor at some point. Probably going to be announced at WWDC and released in Q4.
But all company?s say this transition is quit easy to go from single core to multi core it?s just the yields subtlety, and the technology that is used too tell each core what to do.
But what is even more interesting is this:
The graphics companies are giving us some great technology at the moment, and Apple really needs to catch up with PC?s in this aria, the most. They have PCI express make a good differents to graphics speed, are there is SLI technology which is becoming cheaper, and is boosting speeds and processing power, for the most part significantly. There?s is already a similar option on its way from ATI, and a few companies have also introduced a single SLI card solution. Which at the moment is not as quick as two cards but not far off? So in my opinion it won't be long until graphics companies bring cell graphics processors, in fact I have a hunch that we will see them late this year or mid next year.
Who cares you may say but with the soon to be introduced OS X tiger which has Core image and Core Video, which run the hole apple interface from your GPU instead of CPU there will be a greater need for faster Graphics and some thing has to be dune and soon. As for the main consumer of Graphics cards the PC market, there also in need of faster GPU's as the race is constantly on for NVIDIA & ATI to be top dog of the speed stakes and games are becoming insane, and Oh yes there?s longhorn around the corner as well. Why dose long have anything to do with this, you ask because its not coming out till 2007, well Microsoft are planning to release "parts" of longhorn from now till then, in new versions of Windows XP. So just like Tiger, Longhorn is supposed to use the GPU primarily. So there fore needing fast and powerful Graphics cards.
There is one other application but on the this time Mac, that is Microsoft will be releasing with GPU's in mind, and that is Virtual PC 7.2/8 or something long those lines. One of the main features that they left out from seven was yes you gessed it, Native Graphics support. Many say that this technology will let Mac users play PC games on a Mac, at good speed, and if that?s going to happen, you will need a pretty good Graphics card to do so. And that brings me back to Tiger, I think there is more to Core Image & Video then meets the eye, because both Core Image & video technologies by pass the operating system and use the GPU to run. And there for reliving CPUs some of works load. Could windows game emulators be on the horizon, who knows but why not?
Conclusion:
There is going to be a need for big hardware upgrades in 2005 or early 2006, and with big updates to Mac and PC OS?s soon, enforcing the move forwarded. We will also see performance gain?s with current Hardware also under these new OS?s.
So I think there will be big speed bumps, probably in the form of cell processors but you can't say for shore. but at this present time there is no reason why they shouldn?t be able to. And if companies like AMD & Intel are going to launch this year with there versions, and conceals following shortly after, then it?s a realistic target that they will appear for apple this year too.
But to accompany that I think will see big changes in graphics for the Mac this year as well.
windows longhorn public view came out today:
http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/e...es/115506.html
Originally posted by Placebo
OMFG it's DUAL DUALS! IT'S LIKE TEH MATREICKS!
Art.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Didn't Jobs say 3 CHz in one year? WTF?
They admitted missing that target back at WWDC. The problems at the 90 nm process node caught everyone by surprise. I doubt we'll see a promise like that again anytime soon.
The next processor will be a (ta-da!) 2.667GHz 970FX.
possible, but they will probably hold out for a 2.8 970fx. Shipping in July at the earliest. Nothing else 'til 06.