If the program is able to use two cpu's it should work with four cores as well. Apple has worked on that in 10.4. Previous to that it could only use two.
Remember as well, the CPU isn't the only part of the equation, we have to see the motherboard Apple puts these new chips on.
IBM is a specialty chip manufactuer. They wouldn't spend millions on development of a mobile G5 unless there were guranteed customers. Apple is the only consumer of G5 chips...
uhh yea Apple and that other small company-- what was there name... micro something... errr.. squaresoft? oh i forgot, they make some OS or something and some game console, ive heard its popular in sweden, they are investing heavily in the PPC.
uhh yea Apple and that other small company-- what was there name... micro something... errr.. squaresoft? oh i forgot, they make some OS or something and some game console, ive heard its popular in sweden, they are investing heavily in the PPC.
That's very funny, but those aren't the same chips.
IBM is a specialty chip manufactuer. They wouldn't spend millions on development of a mobile G5 unless there were guranteed customers. Apple is the only consumer of G5 chips...
Yeah, I saw that. I'm wondering who will want a dual 1.4GHz chip.
The enhancements are intriguing though. They don't tell us much about it.
We can SPECULATE
Well one thought comes to mind -- a little company named N-something with a product coming next year named R-something. We know it has to be compatible with an existing G3-based product.
Don't forget that both of these chips have internal improvements, including 1 MB of cache (per core). This should result in better performance at the same clock rate, compared to the 970FX. I expect Apple to use the 970MP in the towers until they switch to Intel sometime around 2007.
More and more software is going to be multi-threaded going forward, especially if quad-core machines are available. People that don't need that much horsepower will still benefit from a single 970MP due to the tighter link between cores and the increased cache sizes. Tiger's internal improvements (of which we can expect more in the future) also mean that we'll see better core utilization.
And remember that Apple's decision to go to Intel was made with full knowledge of these processors, and what IBM is going next. Intel's future roadmap is what has lured Apple from PPC to x86, not these chips or Intel's current chips. Intel is probably also talking a better story about their 65 and 40 nm migration math.
Well one thought comes to mind -- a little company named N-something with a product coming next year named R-something. We know it has to be compatible with an existing G3-based product.
Don't forget that both of these chips have internal improvements, including 1 MB of cache (per core). This should result in better performance at the same clock rate, compared to the 970FX. I expect Apple to use the 970MP in the towers until they switch to Intel sometime around 2007.
More and more software is going to be multi-threaded going forward, especially if quad-core machines are available. People that don't need that much horsepower will still benefit from a single 970MP due to the tighter link between cores and the increased cache sizes. Tiger's internal improvements (of which we can expect more in the future) also mean that we'll see better core utilization.
And remember that Apple's decision to go to Intel was made with full knowledge of these processors, and what IBM is going next. Intel's future roadmap is what has lured Apple from PPC to x86, not these chips or Intel's current chips. Intel is probably also talking a better story about their 65 and 40 nm migration math.
I suppose my daughter will want one of those NR's, as well as an MX and an SP
I did mention the other matters in an above post. The dual 1.4 does seem to have a limited use though.
Being that a PowerMac with Dual - Dual core processors could arrive faster than a Dual - Dual core Intel PowerMac (probably by at least a year.) I would be buying one. As long at it pretty much smokes the current Daul 2.7GHz PowerMac.
In case some might be interested in a broken English translation of IBM's Japanese press release, here it is (I hope). If it doesn't work, I'll copy it to the post.
What if the 1.4Ghz range of dual core G5s are low power? Say 30W dual G5 1.4, maybe 35W dual G5 1.6. That'd be worthwhile for a powerbook certainly. Also, at 16W @ 1.6Ghz the chip is extremely cool; Apple had a tradition of getting Motorola to certify chips at higher clocks for Apple when they felt they could get awat with generating more heat.
What if the 1.4Ghz range of dual core G5s are low power? Say 30W dual G5 1.4, maybe 35W dual G5 1.6. That'd be worthwhile for a powerbook certainly. Also, at 16W @ 1.6Ghz the chip is extremely cool; Apple had a tradition of getting Motorola to certify chips at higher clocks for Apple when they felt they could get awat with generating more heat.
Certainly. Freescale still say the 7447A only goes up to 1.4GHz officially, yet Apple are shipping laptops with them running at 1.67GHz. I wouldn't start thinking that Freescale can't get 2GHz 7448s to Apple, and likewise that IBM can't get 1.8 or even 2GHz G5s at under 20W.
Looks like IBM is trying to show that Apple was wrong. Unfortunately the only major customer they will have for it is Apple, and only for a year or so. Just shows how important it is to be proactive instead of reactive.
No, CPU development doesn't work like that. If IBM developed a new CPU in reaction to Jobs' switch to Intel announcement, it would take one to two years to get even close to mass production. If anything, the CPUs announced today were the very reason for Apple's switch.
Consider that Apple has know of these two chips, the low-power 970fx and the dual core 970mp, since their early development stages. IBM most likely gave Apple a roadmap with these CPUs and predicted availability - then IBM flubbed everything by missing the timeline projections, and kept moving the expected release date farther and farther into the future. Meanwhile Apple's tower sales are tanking, and they're still cramming Motorola's 20th century turds into low end Macs and high end laptops. IBM repeatedly failed to meet Apple's needs and so Jobs decided to switch to Intel.
This scenario is pure speculation, but we do know that Apple has had CHUD tools for some time that were written for systems with 4 cores. Furthermore, this low power 970fx would have been killer technology 2 years ago. The 970mp keeps Apple in the game if 9they can ship 970mp-based Powermacs this year, but if IBM had introduced the dual core 970 chip a year ago, Apple would have dominated in desktop PC performance.
There are a host of missed opportunities by IBM and Apple, and these are only the ones we know about. My guess is that Jobs grew weary of IBM's glacial development of the PPC 970, and so pulled the trigger on Intel-based Macs,
The dual-core announcement is interesting, until you realize that it's not an improvement over the current lineup unless Apple decides to sell dual-dual-cores computers.
Agreed. I'm at a loss for predicting Apple's choice on this one. They can pad their profit margins by offering only single CPU Powermacs, and make up for the lame performance with RDF marketing. Alternatively, Apple can do the right thing; evidence in the form of CHUD tools configured for >2 cores suggests Apple is considering the right thing, and may follow through. Unfortunately, it seems like Apple has been very miserly over motherboard specs and other details of Powermac performance that could easily boost the performance of stale CPUs.
Quote:
This will not help gaming or any app that isn't multithreaded one bit. What it will let you do is run single-thread apps without a hiccup. Not bad but not ground-breaking.
Although the few well threaded apps will be monsters on those computers.
Dude, not true! Since when is a quad-core Powermac not "ground-breaking"? Tiger is ready for quad cores, a few apps are, like you said, and once quad-core Powermacs are available, many developers will exploit the new technology. And since Intel and AMD are moving to multi-core CPUs, games will follow before long. A twin dual-core Powermac G5 would be a fucking earthquake that hits the entire Mac computing world - Apple may not be the first to the multi-core party, but they have the potential to implement dual core technology better by leveraging OS X, and by putting such instruments in the hands of average Mac users.
i think we are all arguing about the same thing. anyway here's my view:
1. IBM has some promising stuff but it is a bit late to the game, nonetheless, at least there is some indication about the g5 in 2006. remember that 2006 will be the "Year of Transition" to make the Mac platform more dynamic, more scalable, albeit with the split-personality challenges of intel/powerpc universal binaries. for the most part, Intel is very likely to deliver, if they cant, then the whole CPU industry is "teh doomed" which in any case AMD would love to have apple come knocking on their door. whatever IBM's deal is, let them be on their way, let's get our bloody g5 chips from them in 2006 and at the end of 2006 put an end to this nonsense of IBM and Freescale holding up Apple in its time of greatest popularity and brand value
2. however, people are skeptical about IBM delivering these g5s in 2006.
3. people that HAVE USED A G5 PERSONALLY will know that applications designed for g5 / PowerPC/ Altivec/ iApps with 1gb of RAM, it kicks ass.
4. however, value for money, the thrill of latest technology, i can tell you, AMD single and dual cores (4000-4800 series) give consumers a feeling of value for money that the powermac g5 does NOT
5. we can argue about GHZ 'till we're blue in the face but i can tell you a joe average looking at a iMac g5 1.8ghz will wonder, how come Dell is selling a 2++ghz for cheaper and it has more of that "RAM" thing. even if the new 1.6ghz low power g5 970fx runs cooler, better, and makes for a sexier iMac g5, steve and apple marketing will just be like, well, that's all bloody well and good but how do we MARKET this thing?
apologies if the CAPS got a bit annoying in this post.
........ A twin dual-core Powermac G5 would be a fucking earthquake that hits the entire Mac computing world - Apple may not be the first to the multi-core party, but they have the potential to implement dual core technology better by leveraging OS X, and by putting such instruments in the hands of average Mac users.
yes. but for the 'average Mac user', such a earth-shattering quad-powermac g5 would have to deliver on the following points to deliver sales, revenues and profits:
A. value for money
B. 2-3ghz clock speed
C. high definition 720p, 1080p
D. smooth integration into the home theatre thing
E. easily obtainable 720p and 1080p video content (see C and D)
F. integration with legacy windows xp/2000 applications
(yes i am talking virtual PC, virtual PC on a quad-powermac g5 with 2gb ram
put an end to the "oh but my business needs this-and-that bullshit
legacy windoze application thing so i can't even consider macs")
G. Games
H. value for money
I. a certain level of upgradeability to convince customers that they are not
locked in to a certain proprietary system, which is one major turn-off
to switching
and last but not least,
J. Steve back in blue jeans and RDF marketing set to '11'
yes. but for the 'average Mac user', such a earth-shattering quad-powermac g5 would have to deliver on the following points to deliver sales, revenues and profits:
A. value for money
B. 2-3ghz clock speed
C. high definition 720p, 1080p
D. smooth integration into the home theatre thing
E. easily obtainable 720p and 1080p video content (see C and D)
F. integration with legacy windows xp/2000 applications
(yes i am talking virtual PC, virtual PC on a quad-powermac g5 with 2gb ram
put an end to the "oh but my business needs this-and-that bullshit
legacy windoze application thing so i can't even consider macs")
G. Games
H. value for money
I. a certain level of upgradeability to convince customers that they are not
locked in to a certain proprietary system, which is one major turn-off
to switching
and last but not least,
J. Steve back in blue jeans and RDF marketing set to '11'
G. Games
Yes, Apple seriously needs to work on this (opengl? more support for developrs? convince more developrs?). Luckily we have 2 of the best game makers happy to let mac ports exist- ID Software & Blizzard. But even then, the games run poor, and are far and few between.
Things are getting worse not better. And game engines are about to hit the 'next generation'- a sad tale when a sh*t hot powermac can only just run doom3.
The days of buying a nice well behaved mac solely to run quark and illustrator are over. Everything about macs kick ass, except the state of gaming.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
If the program is able to use two cpu's it should work with four cores as well. Apple has worked on that in 10.4. Previous to that it could only use two.
Remember as well, the CPU isn't the only part of the equation, we have to see the motherboard Apple puts these new chips on.
Originally posted by TofuTodd
IBM is a specialty chip manufactuer. They wouldn't spend millions on development of a mobile G5 unless there were guranteed customers. Apple is the only consumer of G5 chips...
uhh yea Apple and that other small company-- what was there name... micro something... errr.. squaresoft? oh i forgot, they make some OS or something and some game console, ive heard its popular in sweden, they are investing heavily in the PPC.
Originally posted by mike12309
uhh yea Apple and that other small company-- what was there name... micro something... errr.. squaresoft? oh i forgot, they make some OS or something and some game console, ive heard its popular in sweden, they are investing heavily in the PPC.
That's very funny, but those aren't the same chips.
Originally posted by mike12309
they are investing heavily in the PPC.
Investing heavily? Hows that? They went with IBM because they were the cheapest.
Originally posted by TofuTodd
IBM is a specialty chip manufactuer. They wouldn't spend millions on development of a mobile G5 unless there were guranteed customers. Apple is the only consumer of G5 chips...
Oh really:
What about Momentum?
and
Terrasoft
and
Continuous Computing ???
Christ, those were on the first result page of a Google search for '970fx manufacturers'.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Oh really:
What about Momentum?
and
Terrasoft
and
Continuous Computing ???
Christ, those were on the first result page of a Google search for '970fx manufacturers'.
That's true, but all of those manufacturers together won't come close to equaling Apple's usage.
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, I saw that. I'm wondering who will want a dual 1.4GHz chip.
The enhancements are intriguing though. They don't tell us much about it.
We can SPECULATE
Well one thought comes to mind -- a little company named N-something with a product coming next year named R-something. We know it has to be compatible with an existing G3-based product.
Don't forget that both of these chips have internal improvements, including 1 MB of cache (per core). This should result in better performance at the same clock rate, compared to the 970FX. I expect Apple to use the 970MP in the towers until they switch to Intel sometime around 2007.
More and more software is going to be multi-threaded going forward, especially if quad-core machines are available. People that don't need that much horsepower will still benefit from a single 970MP due to the tighter link between cores and the increased cache sizes. Tiger's internal improvements (of which we can expect more in the future) also mean that we'll see better core utilization.
And remember that Apple's decision to go to Intel was made with full knowledge of these processors, and what IBM is going next. Intel's future roadmap is what has lured Apple from PPC to x86, not these chips or Intel's current chips. Intel is probably also talking a better story about their 65 and 40 nm migration math.
Originally posted by Programmer
Well one thought comes to mind -- a little company named N-something with a product coming next year named R-something. We know it has to be compatible with an existing G3-based product.
Don't forget that both of these chips have internal improvements, including 1 MB of cache (per core). This should result in better performance at the same clock rate, compared to the 970FX. I expect Apple to use the 970MP in the towers until they switch to Intel sometime around 2007.
More and more software is going to be multi-threaded going forward, especially if quad-core machines are available. People that don't need that much horsepower will still benefit from a single 970MP due to the tighter link between cores and the increased cache sizes. Tiger's internal improvements (of which we can expect more in the future) also mean that we'll see better core utilization.
And remember that Apple's decision to go to Intel was made with full knowledge of these processors, and what IBM is going next. Intel's future roadmap is what has lured Apple from PPC to x86, not these chips or Intel's current chips. Intel is probably also talking a better story about their 65 and 40 nm migration math.
I suppose my daughter will want one of those NR's, as well as an MX and an SP
I did mention the other matters in an above post. The dual 1.4 does seem to have a limited use though.
http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-0..._maxwell1.html
http://translate.google.com/translat...050707003.html
DUAL DUAL PPC PowerMac
DUAL PPC Powerbook
DUAL PPC iMac
I like the idea of DUAL everything! G5 Squared (dual dual)!
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
What if the 1.4Ghz range of dual core G5s are low power? Say 30W dual G5 1.4, maybe 35W dual G5 1.6. That'd be worthwhile for a powerbook certainly. Also, at 16W @ 1.6Ghz the chip is extremely cool; Apple had a tradition of getting Motorola to certify chips at higher clocks for Apple when they felt they could get awat with generating more heat.
Certainly. Freescale still say the 7447A only goes up to 1.4GHz officially, yet Apple are shipping laptops with them running at 1.67GHz. I wouldn't start thinking that Freescale can't get 2GHz 7448s to Apple, and likewise that IBM can't get 1.8 or even 2GHz G5s at under 20W.
Originally posted by kenaustus
Looks like IBM is trying to show that Apple was wrong. Unfortunately the only major customer they will have for it is Apple, and only for a year or so. Just shows how important it is to be proactive instead of reactive.
No, CPU development doesn't work like that. If IBM developed a new CPU in reaction to Jobs' switch to Intel announcement, it would take one to two years to get even close to mass production. If anything, the CPUs announced today were the very reason for Apple's switch.
Consider that Apple has know of these two chips, the low-power 970fx and the dual core 970mp, since their early development stages. IBM most likely gave Apple a roadmap with these CPUs and predicted availability - then IBM flubbed everything by missing the timeline projections, and kept moving the expected release date farther and farther into the future. Meanwhile Apple's tower sales are tanking, and they're still cramming Motorola's 20th century turds into low end Macs and high end laptops. IBM repeatedly failed to meet Apple's needs and so Jobs decided to switch to Intel.
This scenario is pure speculation, but we do know that Apple has had CHUD tools for some time that were written for systems with 4 cores. Furthermore, this low power 970fx would have been killer technology 2 years ago. The 970mp keeps Apple in the game if 9they can ship 970mp-based Powermacs this year, but if IBM had introduced the dual core 970 chip a year ago, Apple would have dominated in desktop PC performance.
There are a host of missed opportunities by IBM and Apple, and these are only the ones we know about. My guess is that Jobs grew weary of IBM's glacial development of the PPC 970, and so pulled the trigger on Intel-based Macs,
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The dual-core announcement is interesting, until you realize that it's not an improvement over the current lineup unless Apple decides to sell dual-dual-cores computers.
Agreed. I'm at a loss for predicting Apple's choice on this one. They can pad their profit margins by offering only single CPU Powermacs, and make up for the lame performance with RDF marketing. Alternatively, Apple can do the right thing; evidence in the form of CHUD tools configured for >2 cores suggests Apple is considering the right thing, and may follow through. Unfortunately, it seems like Apple has been very miserly over motherboard specs and other details of Powermac performance that could easily boost the performance of stale CPUs.
This will not help gaming or any app that isn't multithreaded one bit. What it will let you do is run single-thread apps without a hiccup. Not bad but not ground-breaking.
Although the few well threaded apps will be monsters on those computers.
Dude, not true! Since when is a quad-core Powermac not "ground-breaking"? Tiger is ready for quad cores, a few apps are, like you said, and once quad-core Powermacs are available, many developers will exploit the new technology. And since Intel and AMD are moving to multi-core CPUs, games will follow before long. A twin dual-core Powermac G5 would be a fucking earthquake that hits the entire Mac computing world - Apple may not be the first to the multi-core party, but they have the potential to implement dual core technology better by leveraging OS X, and by putting such instruments in the hands of average Mac users.
1. IBM has some promising stuff but it is a bit late to the game, nonetheless, at least there is some indication about the g5 in 2006. remember that 2006 will be the "Year of Transition" to make the Mac platform more dynamic, more scalable, albeit with the split-personality challenges of intel/powerpc universal binaries. for the most part, Intel is very likely to deliver, if they cant, then the whole CPU industry is "teh doomed" which in any case AMD would love to have apple come knocking on their door. whatever IBM's deal is, let them be on their way, let's get our bloody g5 chips from them in 2006 and at the end of 2006 put an end to this nonsense of IBM and Freescale holding up Apple in its time of greatest popularity and brand value
2. however, people are skeptical about IBM delivering these g5s in 2006.
3. people that HAVE USED A G5 PERSONALLY will know that applications designed for g5 / PowerPC/ Altivec/ iApps with 1gb of RAM, it kicks ass.
4. however, value for money, the thrill of latest technology, i can tell you, AMD single and dual cores (4000-4800 series) give consumers a feeling of value for money that the powermac g5 does NOT
5. we can argue about GHZ 'till we're blue in the face but i can tell you a joe average looking at a iMac g5 1.8ghz will wonder, how come Dell is selling a 2++ghz for cheaper and it has more of that "RAM" thing. even if the new 1.6ghz low power g5 970fx runs cooler, better, and makes for a sexier iMac g5, steve and apple marketing will just be like, well, that's all bloody well and good but how do we MARKET this thing?
apologies if the CAPS got a bit annoying in this post.
........
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
........ A twin dual-core Powermac G5 would be a fucking earthquake that hits the entire Mac computing world - Apple may not be the first to the multi-core party, but they have the potential to implement dual core technology better by leveraging OS X, and by putting such instruments in the hands of average Mac users.
yes. but for the 'average Mac user', such a earth-shattering quad-powermac g5 would have to deliver on the following points to deliver sales, revenues and profits:
A. value for money
B. 2-3ghz clock speed
C. high definition 720p, 1080p
D. smooth integration into the home theatre thing
E. easily obtainable 720p and 1080p video content (see C and D)
F. integration with legacy windows xp/2000 applications
(yes i am talking virtual PC, virtual PC on a quad-powermac g5 with 2gb ram
put an end to the "oh but my business needs this-and-that bullshit
legacy windoze application thing so i can't even consider macs")
G. Games
H. value for money
I. a certain level of upgradeability to convince customers that they are not
locked in to a certain proprietary system, which is one major turn-off
to switching
and last but not least,
J. Steve back in blue jeans and RDF marketing set to '11'
Originally posted by sunilraman
yes. but for the 'average Mac user', such a earth-shattering quad-powermac g5 would have to deliver on the following points to deliver sales, revenues and profits:
A. value for money
B. 2-3ghz clock speed
C. high definition 720p, 1080p
D. smooth integration into the home theatre thing
E. easily obtainable 720p and 1080p video content (see C and D)
F. integration with legacy windows xp/2000 applications
(yes i am talking virtual PC, virtual PC on a quad-powermac g5 with 2gb ram
put an end to the "oh but my business needs this-and-that bullshit
legacy windoze application thing so i can't even consider macs")
G. Games
H. value for money
I. a certain level of upgradeability to convince customers that they are not
locked in to a certain proprietary system, which is one major turn-off
to switching
and last but not least,
J. Steve back in blue jeans and RDF marketing set to '11'
G. Games
Yes, Apple seriously needs to work on this (opengl? more support for developrs? convince more developrs?). Luckily we have 2 of the best game makers happy to let mac ports exist- ID Software & Blizzard. But even then, the games run poor, and are far and few between.
Things are getting worse not better. And game engines are about to hit the 'next generation'- a sad tale when a sh*t hot powermac can only just run doom3.
The days of buying a nice well behaved mac solely to run quark and illustrator are over. Everything about macs kick ass, except the state of gaming.