i think we are all getting cranky waiting for the Rev C powermacs... I'm anxious because I actually have a bunch of money to spend for the first time in years!
Also you guys have to remember, apple has to release a WHOLE computer, where intel and AMD just have to release the cpu's (and motherboard in intel's case). Point being, its no wonder AMD will be shipping first, all they avhe to concentrate on is one item, where apple has to concentrate on everything. Its not like ibm will be selling the chips directly to the consumer.
Microsoft is going to announce the next-generation XBox on May 12th accoring to Engadget.
As far as I remember, it is going to be equipped with a (extremely) high-clocked triple-core PowerPC processor.
And there are rumors that Sony is going to announce the cell-based (thus PPC-based) PS3 arround the same time.
How long do you think it will take IBM to fab multi-core 970 PPCs (or a next-gen GPUL - maybe POWER5-based)? And how long will it take Apple to announce Macs equipped with the chips?
My guess is that WWDC will bring major hardware news - and the breaking of the 3 GHz barrier.
Also you guys have to remember, apple has to release a WHOLE computer, where intel and AMD just have to release the cpu's (and motherboard in intel's case). Point being, its no wonder AMD will be shipping first, all they avhe to concentrate on is one item, where apple has to concentrate on everything. Its not like ibm will be selling the chips directly to the consumer.
And which do you think is harder to create/ship, the chip, or a bunch of hardware slapped together in an enclosure and delivered to people by mail?
And which do you think is harder to create/ship, the chip, or a bunch of hardware slapped together in an enclosure and delivered to people by mail?
Gotta have the cpu before you can manufacture the motherboard (which is apple's job).
The relevance of this is the time... The title of this thread is "AMD's dual-core Opteron due this month"... pointing to the idea that apple needs to release ASAP. Well there is more time involved shipping a whole system. This gives an excuse to be late.
How long do you think it will take IBM to fab multi-core 970 PPCs (or a next-gen GPUL - maybe POWER5-based)? And how long will it take Apple to announce Macs equipped with the chips?
If the last leaks about the 970MP are to be believed, and I don't see why one should have doubts, then IBM has dual core 970 processors already for sometime now. Apple started to test these processors certainly some months ago. This is what tell us the removed update of CHUD tools. From this I get that Apple will release this year dual core-based Power Macs. Hopefuly in WWDC.
I don't see though a next generation CPU (Power5-based) before next year, I would say in a year more or less from now, perhaps more.
Quote:
My guess is that WWDC will bring major hardware news - and the breaking of the 3 GHz barrier.
Hardware news I believe, major I don't know. As for the 3 GHz barrier, I think it is still debatable. Here is why. Assuming that IBM can deliver both dual core chips and 3 GHz chips, it is a tough decision for Apple what to do, since I can hardly see IBM reaching 3 GHz in a dual core configuration. So, what Apple does if there are dual core chips at 2.5 GHz maximum (I expect them to be around there, and this is optimistic) and single core chips at 3 GHz max.? Personally, I have no idea. Add to that the possibility of a double dual core configuration, the fabulous here QuadMac, which cannot be ruled out, and you will see why we may eventually still remain at 2.5 GHz max., even one year after S. Jobs promise deadline. Which most likely will lead us to two years after this deadline.
Hardware news I believe, major I don't know. As for the 3 GHz barrier, I think it is still debatable. Here is why. Assuming that IBM can deliver both dual core chips and 3 GHz chips, it is a tough decision for Apple what to do, since I can hardly see IBM reaching 3 GHz in a dual core configuration. So, what Apple does if there are dual core chips at 2.5 GHz maximum (I expect them to be around there, and this is optimistic) and single core chips at 3 GHz max.? Personally, I have no idea. Add to that the possibility of a double dual core configuration, the fabulous here QuadMac, which cannot be ruled out, and you will see why we may eventually still remain at 2.5 GHz max., even one year after S. Jobs promise deadline. Which most likely will lead us to two years after this deadline.
I do belive that 3 GHz plus are possible because of the confirmed next-gen XBox-announcement that is rumored to have a triple-core PPC-CPU clocked at 3 GHz+.
I do belive that 3 GHz plus are possible because of the confirmed next-gen XBox-announcement that is rumored to have a triple-core PPC-CPU clocked at 3 GHz+.
XBOX 2 is going to be unveiled globally on MTV on May 12th. 5 days ahead of E3 in a half hour special.
OK, sorry. I didn't know that the process of creating a chip doesn't affect the process of shipping a chip. Silly me.
What I meant was you guys are arguing over the most trivial issues that have little effect. They can get same day shipping on an IBM jet if they absolutely had to test some, and they could overnight the rest. "Boy was that day killing us. lol." - Apple.
XBOX 2 is going to be unveiled globally on MTV on May 12th. 5 days ahead of E3 in a half hour special.
Right, as stated in the link in one of my former posts. I am convinced that we will see high-clocked multi-core PPC chips - for sure in the XBox, and hopefully in Macs announced at WWDC.
I do belive that 3 GHz plus are possible because of the confirmed next-gen XBox-announcement that is rumored to have a triple-core PPC-CPU clocked at 3 GHz+.
I cannot recall all the discussion that was going on here and elsewhere, maybe someone else can help out or you could google it up.
But what I recall is that they are high-clocked multi-core (triple-cores IIRC) 64-bit chips and that they are manufactured by IBM, and that the development systems used by MS are PowerMac G5s. And remember that the first XBox had a measily 750 MHz Pentium 3 (rather a Celeron) when PC systems had well above 1 GHz.
Thus I think that IBM does know how to produce fast multi-core chips in high amounts at prices that are not prohibitive.
They are PowerPC processors, but they're not 970's.
What kind of beast is it exactly, where are the differences to the G5/PPC970? They should be pretty similar considering MS's choice of development platform.
Well if IBM had this beastly successor to the PPC 970fx in the pipeline, and was deciding on where to allocate resources, would they divert them towards both the 970mp development and tinkering with 970fx yields, or would they just assume the 970fx is on its way out and so throw everything at the 970mp?
I'm hoping the latter. The Fishkill plant has been on line for some time now, and IBM is apparently quite proficient at fabbing chips judging by their deals with all these game console manufacturers. Apple is only one of many customers who have recently gone to IBM for a custom designed CPU, and gotten the promised goods in a timely fashion. Given IBM's sterling track record, wouldn't it be unusual for IBM to have trouble meeting Apple's needs? After all, Apple isn't asking for anything novel, all they want is for IBM to adapt an existing dual-core CPU design to a smaller, lower power variant. It's work as usual at IBM, right?
Well if IBM had this beastly successor to the PPC 970fx in the pipeline, and was deciding on where to allocate resources, would they divert them towards both the 970mp development and tinkering with 970fx yields, or would they just assume the 970fx is on its way out and so throw everything at the 970mp?
I'm hoping the latter. The Fishkill plant has been on line for some time now, and IBM is apparently quite proficient at fabbing chips judging by their deals with all these game console manufacturers. Apple is only one of many customers who have recently gone to IBM for a custom designed CPU, and gotten the promised goods in a timely fashion. Given IBM's sterling track record, wouldn't it be unusual for IBM to have trouble meeting Apple's needs? After all, Apple isn't asking for anything novel, all they want is for IBM to adapt an existing dual-core CPU design to a smaller, lower power variant. It's work as usual at IBM, right?
Not really. It seems like it takes IBM forever to deliver anything to Apple because everything had shipping delays of weeks to months before, but now that the ordering is down to a minimized amount they can meet the demand, but it's not all smooth sailing for Apple. It seems IBM is more interested in the other opportunities other than delivering jack squat to Apple IMO. IF it were that easy Apple would be able to tell them to reduce the Power, and heat on the Power4 based 970MP for consumer products, and get on with a Power5 derivative for the PowerMac.
Comments
Also you guys have to remember, apple has to release a WHOLE computer, where intel and AMD just have to release the cpu's (and motherboard in intel's case). Point being, its no wonder AMD will be shipping first, all they avhe to concentrate on is one item, where apple has to concentrate on everything. Its not like ibm will be selling the chips directly to the consumer.
As far as I remember, it is going to be equipped with a (extremely) high-clocked triple-core PowerPC processor.
And there are rumors that Sony is going to announce the cell-based (thus PPC-based) PS3 arround the same time.
How long do you think it will take IBM to fab multi-core 970 PPCs (or a next-gen GPUL - maybe POWER5-based)? And how long will it take Apple to announce Macs equipped with the chips?
My guess is that WWDC will bring major hardware news - and the breaking of the 3 GHz barrier.
Originally posted by emig647
Agreed mikenap,
Also you guys have to remember, apple has to release a WHOLE computer, where intel and AMD just have to release the cpu's (and motherboard in intel's case). Point being, its no wonder AMD will be shipping first, all they avhe to concentrate on is one item, where apple has to concentrate on everything. Its not like ibm will be selling the chips directly to the consumer.
And which do you think is harder to create/ship, the chip, or a bunch of hardware slapped together in an enclosure and delivered to people by mail?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And which do you think is harder to create/ship, the chip, or a bunch of hardware slapped together in an enclosure and delivered to people by mail?
What does any of this have to do with anything? What does it matter?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And which do you think is harder to create/ship, the chip, or a bunch of hardware slapped together in an enclosure and delivered to people by mail?
Gotta have the cpu before you can manufacture the motherboard (which is apple's job).
The relevance of this is the time... The title of this thread is "AMD's dual-core Opteron due this month"... pointing to the idea that apple needs to release ASAP. Well there is more time involved shipping a whole system. This gives an excuse to be late.
But not too late of course.
Originally posted by RolandG
How long do you think it will take IBM to fab multi-core 970 PPCs (or a next-gen GPUL - maybe POWER5-based)? And how long will it take Apple to announce Macs equipped with the chips?
If the last leaks about the 970MP are to be believed, and I don't see why one should have doubts, then IBM has dual core 970 processors already for sometime now. Apple started to test these processors certainly some months ago. This is what tell us the removed update of CHUD tools. From this I get that Apple will release this year dual core-based Power Macs. Hopefuly in WWDC.
I don't see though a next generation CPU (Power5-based) before next year, I would say in a year more or less from now, perhaps more.
Quote:
My guess is that WWDC will bring major hardware news - and the breaking of the 3 GHz barrier.
Hardware news I believe, major I don't know. As for the 3 GHz barrier, I think it is still debatable. Here is why. Assuming that IBM can deliver both dual core chips and 3 GHz chips, it is a tough decision for Apple what to do, since I can hardly see IBM reaching 3 GHz in a dual core configuration. So, what Apple does if there are dual core chips at 2.5 GHz maximum (I expect them to be around there, and this is optimistic) and single core chips at 3 GHz max.? Personally, I have no idea. Add to that the possibility of a double dual core configuration, the fabulous here QuadMac, which cannot be ruled out, and you will see why we may eventually still remain at 2.5 GHz max., even one year after S. Jobs promise deadline. Which most likely will lead us to two years after this deadline.
Originally posted by PB
Hardware news I believe, major I don't know. As for the 3 GHz barrier, I think it is still debatable. Here is why. Assuming that IBM can deliver both dual core chips and 3 GHz chips, it is a tough decision for Apple what to do, since I can hardly see IBM reaching 3 GHz in a dual core configuration. So, what Apple does if there are dual core chips at 2.5 GHz maximum (I expect them to be around there, and this is optimistic) and single core chips at 3 GHz max.? Personally, I have no idea. Add to that the possibility of a double dual core configuration, the fabulous here QuadMac, which cannot be ruled out, and you will see why we may eventually still remain at 2.5 GHz max., even one year after S. Jobs promise deadline. Which most likely will lead us to two years after this deadline.
I do belive that 3 GHz plus are possible because of the confirmed next-gen XBox-announcement that is rumored to have a triple-core PPC-CPU clocked at 3 GHz+.
Originally posted by RolandG
I do belive that 3 GHz plus are possible because of the confirmed next-gen XBox-announcement that is rumored to have a triple-core PPC-CPU clocked at 3 GHz+.
XBOX 2 is going to be unveiled globally on MTV on May 12th. 5 days ahead of E3 in a half hour special.
Originally posted by onlooker
What does any of this have to do with anything? What does it matter?
OK, sorry. I didn't know that the process of creating a chip doesn't affect the process of shipping a chip. Silly me.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
OK, sorry. I didn't know that the process of creating a chip doesn't affect the process of shipping a chip. Silly me.
What I meant was you guys are arguing over the most trivial issues that have little effect. They can get same day shipping on an IBM jet if they absolutely had to test some, and they could overnight the rest. "Boy was that day killing us. lol." - Apple.
Originally posted by onlooker
XBOX 2 is going to be unveiled globally on MTV on May 12th. 5 days ahead of E3 in a half hour special.
Right, as stated in the link in one of my former posts. I am convinced that we will see high-clocked multi-core PPC chips - for sure in the XBox, and hopefully in Macs announced at WWDC.
Originally posted by RolandG
I do belive that 3 GHz plus are possible because of the confirmed next-gen XBox-announcement that is rumored to have a triple-core PPC-CPU clocked at 3 GHz+.
Who tell us that those chips are PPC970?
Originally posted by PB
Who tell us that those chips are PPC970?
I cannot recall all the discussion that was going on here and elsewhere, maybe someone else can help out or you could google it up.
But what I recall is that they are high-clocked multi-core (triple-cores IIRC) 64-bit chips and that they are manufactured by IBM, and that the development systems used by MS are PowerMac G5s. And remember that the first XBox had a measily 750 MHz Pentium 3 (rather a Celeron) when PC systems had well above 1 GHz.
Thus I think that IBM does know how to produce fast multi-core chips in high amounts at prices that are not prohibitive.
Originally posted by onlooker
They are PowerPC processors, but they're not 970's.
What kind of beast is it exactly, where are the differences to the G5/PPC970? They should be pretty similar considering MS's choice of development platform.
First test of dual core Intel chip... amazing multimedia/photoshop scores...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1784235,00.asp
bring on the 970MP!
I'm hoping the latter. The Fishkill plant has been on line for some time now, and IBM is apparently quite proficient at fabbing chips judging by their deals with all these game console manufacturers. Apple is only one of many customers who have recently gone to IBM for a custom designed CPU, and gotten the promised goods in a timely fashion. Given IBM's sterling track record, wouldn't it be unusual for IBM to have trouble meeting Apple's needs? After all, Apple isn't asking for anything novel, all they want is for IBM to adapt an existing dual-core CPU design to a smaller, lower power variant. It's work as usual at IBM, right?
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Well if IBM had this beastly successor to the PPC 970fx in the pipeline, and was deciding on where to allocate resources, would they divert them towards both the 970mp development and tinkering with 970fx yields, or would they just assume the 970fx is on its way out and so throw everything at the 970mp?
I'm hoping the latter. The Fishkill plant has been on line for some time now, and IBM is apparently quite proficient at fabbing chips judging by their deals with all these game console manufacturers. Apple is only one of many customers who have recently gone to IBM for a custom designed CPU, and gotten the promised goods in a timely fashion. Given IBM's sterling track record, wouldn't it be unusual for IBM to have trouble meeting Apple's needs? After all, Apple isn't asking for anything novel, all they want is for IBM to adapt an existing dual-core CPU design to a smaller, lower power variant. It's work as usual at IBM, right?
Not really. It seems like it takes IBM forever to deliver anything to Apple because everything had shipping delays of weeks to months before, but now that the ordering is down to a minimized amount they can meet the demand, but it's not all smooth sailing for Apple. It seems IBM is more interested in the other opportunities other than delivering jack squat to Apple IMO. IF it were that easy Apple would be able to tell them to reduce the Power, and heat on the Power4 based 970MP for consumer products, and get on with a Power5 derivative for the PowerMac.