Obviously no. Apple was the only real customer for the PPC 970 chip. No Apple means, no market to sell into. No market, means no investment from IBM, and the 2.5 GHz 970mp is the last we will see from IBM.
Also, Jobs already took a shot at IBM during the WWDC05 Keynote where he annouce the switch.
Its all water under the bridge, guys. IBM isn't likely to push the 970-based designs forward, and they have already driven Power above 3 GHz in the form of the XBox360 and the Cell processor (which is 3 - 5 GHz!). Steve has said what he wanted to about IBM and will now likely focus on Apple's future with Intel.
The interesting question is when Intel will break the 3 GHz "barrier" with their performance/watt oriented processors...?
Its all water under the bridge, guys. IBM isn't likely to push the 970-based designs forward...
There was some months ago an IBM roadmap showing certain improvements on the 970 line for next year, but I don't remember the details. Can anyone find it again?
EDIT: OK, here it is. The 970MX is the 3+ GHz multi-core CPU, scheduled(?) for next year. Also, there is the 970GX with 1 MB L2, which could make for a last iMac update.
There was some months ago an IBM roadmap showing certain improvements on the 970 line for next year, but I don't remember the details. Can anyone find it again?
EDIT: OK, here it is. The 970MX is the 3+ GHz multi-core CPU, scheduled(?) for next year. Also, there is the 970GX with 1 MB L2, which could make for a last iMac update.
That is all likely to be stuff that was in the pipeline, but went off the rails when Apple announced its switch to Intel. It may never see the light of day...
That is all likely to be stuff that was in the pipeline, but went off the rails when Apple announced its switch to Intel. It may never see the light of day...
Perhaps. Besides, the roadmap is from past year. However, Apple will still need some CPU improvements for the G5 machines before the switch. Going for a 2/3 quad Power Mac line (instead of today's 1/3), or eventually all quad, would hold them for some time without needing CPU feature bumps. As for the iMac, it could take a 970GX in its last PPC iteration, if raising the clock frequency would be an issue.
Unless the transition is going to happen much faster than we think here, which I doubt.
Perhaps. Besides, the roadmap is from past year. However, Apple will still need some CPU improvements for the G5 machines before the switch. Going for a 2/3 quad Power Mac line (instead of today's 1/3), or eventually all quad, would hold them for some time without needing CPU feature bumps. As for the iMac, it could take a 970GX in its last PPC iteration, if raising the clock frequency would be an issue.
Unless the transition is going to happen much faster than we think here, which I doubt.
I think we've seen all of the new technology that will ever be in the PPC machines -- you're right in that we might see the quad move down the product line, and various other config improvements... but fundamentally all the PPC tech is already there.
I think the PowerMac will go Intel in late '06 when Intel's next round of processors and chipsets arrive. We are unlikely to see a 3 GHz Mac for some time yet...
Heh. The 970gx, 970mx roadmap is interesting. Was it IBM's roadmap before they moved to the PPU core in the Cell as the PPC CPU core of the future, or was IBM willing to do them concurrently? Everyone seems to think that IBM offered Apple a PPU-core derivative roadmap, not a 970-core one. If a 2 GHz 970mx on IBM's 65 nm process could be less than 30 Watts max, it could be interesting. But based on the 970mp, it's a very tall high to climb to even get close.
Anyways, if Apple needs another iMac/PPC revision, they will have to use a 2 GHz 970mp (if it is not too hot). A single-core iMac/PPC in mid-2006 for $1300+ will be a tough sell going against Yonah, Conroe or Athlon X2 systems.
Anyways, if Apple needs another iMac/PPC revision, they will have to use a 2 GHz 970mp (if it is not too hot).
Without thinking or searching much about it, I would say it is too hot. But then again, there was once a single CPU G5 in the humongous Power Mac case, that did make it to the slim (for a desktop) iMac. Do we have exact power figures to compare?
Note that the iMacs use a 1:3 FSB ratio, whereas the PowerMacs have 1:2. So a, say, 2.3 GHz 970MP would have a 1.15 GHz bus in a PM, but only a 767 MHz one in an iMac.
I'm no expert on this, but I would venture to guess that a slower FSB causes significantly lower heat dissipation, much in the same way a slower CPU does.
That said, I still don't see a multi-core iMac in the near future. Multiple cores is a significant feature that sets PowerMacs apart -- much in the same way DVI and spanning support sets the PowerBooks apart from iBooks.
That said, I still don't see a multi-core iMac in the near future. Multiple cores is a significant feature that sets PowerMacs apart -- much in the same way DVI and spanning support sets the PowerBooks apart from iBooks.
The Intel transition will change that. In a year, I would bet that 50% of all computers will be dual core. By 2007, only idiots will be purchasing single core computers. By 2008, the single cores will be gone IMHO.
The iMac is a hot seller and I think they have to make it dual core to cash in on it's high sale numbers. They need to think different and start shoving all they can in each line of computers.
The iMac is a hot seller and I think they have to make it dual core to cash in on it's high sale numbers.
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
Of course you're right, though. Macs will eventually move to two cores entirely; at the same time, PowerMacs will go to four, perhaps even eight cores.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
Of course you're right, though. Macs will eventually move to two cores entirely; at the same time, PowerMacs will go to four, perhaps even eight cores.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
I agree with you.
I was just inserting some extra stuff. Sorry if that came off like I was riding you.
Apple has hot sellers because they keep them fresh. The iPod line and iMac have to be the hotest sellers because they get the most updates. If they stick a single core intel chip in the MacIntel iMac for starters, it will be a dissapointment for those who don't have any Intel software ready to go. That is why I believe they will stick the dual core in and take the safe route but then again, I am just a Kool-Aide clown...
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
Of course you're right, though. Macs will eventually move to two cores entirely; at the same time, PowerMacs will go to four, perhaps even eight cores.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
With the PowerMac you get (more) slots, for RAM, add in cards and better graphics cards (very important, and increasingly important for Aperature and other pro tools). As Apple's other pro software is updated to use the Core Image/Video/Sound services I believe the graphics card will be more important than the processor. This will mean if you do go for a consumer Macintosh you will miss out on significant performance.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
Oh, Apple has no trouble making sure their low-end machines don't cannibalize their high-end ones.
If the iMac revision is a 2-2.3 GHz Yonah system in June of 06, Apple can make the PowerMac quads all around or price the 2 lines appropriately. And of course for graphics, I can see them using Intel graphics in the iMac very easily. Very easily.
If the iMac revision is a 2-2.3 GHz Yonah system in June of 06, Apple can make the PowerMac quads all around or price the 2 lines appropriately.
I don't see the iMac taking a 32-bit CPU. Not that the 64-bit G5 it has now is important for more than 1% of consumer. It will be just very bad marketing.
That's why I believe that there will be one more PPC update with either a slightly faster 970FX, or an equally clocked 970GX. The 970MP seems like a dream right now.
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
However, the last iMac update makes me think otherwise.
Quote:
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
Apple has no other choice in the coming months than to move the 2.3 GHz Power Mac to a quad configuration. This leaves room for a high-end dual core iMac. Although I have a feeling that it is a little soon for such a move, I have seen dual core 3.0 GHz Intel systems at around 1000 euros. CPU-power wise, the iMac is not anymore competitive. Not at all. It is the value of the total package that save it. But for how long?
Comments
Also, Jobs already took a shot at IBM during the WWDC05 Keynote where he annouce the switch.
Originally posted by THT
Also, Jobs already took a shot at IBM during the WWDC05 Keynote where he annouce the switch.
I would say more like a full-on broadside with all cannons...!
;^p
Originally posted by aplnub
Do you think the G5 will hit the 3 GHz in a Mac before the transition takes place?
No. Hell no. "Monkeys will fly out of my butt before it happens" No.
The interesting question is when Intel will break the 3 GHz "barrier" with their performance/watt oriented processors...?
Originally posted by Programmer
Its all water under the bridge, guys. IBM isn't likely to push the 970-based designs forward...
There was some months ago an IBM roadmap showing certain improvements on the 970 line for next year, but I don't remember the details. Can anyone find it again?
EDIT: OK, here it is. The 970MX is the 3+ GHz multi-core CPU, scheduled(?) for next year. Also, there is the 970GX with 1 MB L2, which could make for a last iMac update.
Originally posted by PB
There was some months ago an IBM roadmap showing certain improvements on the 970 line for next year, but I don't remember the details. Can anyone find it again?
EDIT: OK, here it is. The 970MX is the 3+ GHz multi-core CPU, scheduled(?) for next year. Also, there is the 970GX with 1 MB L2, which could make for a last iMac update.
That is all likely to be stuff that was in the pipeline, but went off the rails when Apple announced its switch to Intel. It may never see the light of day...
Originally posted by Programmer
That is all likely to be stuff that was in the pipeline, but went off the rails when Apple announced its switch to Intel. It may never see the light of day...
Perhaps. Besides, the roadmap is from past year. However, Apple will still need some CPU improvements for the G5 machines before the switch. Going for a 2/3 quad Power Mac line (instead of today's 1/3), or eventually all quad, would hold them for some time without needing CPU feature bumps. As for the iMac, it could take a 970GX in its last PPC iteration, if raising the clock frequency would be an issue.
Unless the transition is going to happen much faster than we think here, which I doubt.
Originally posted by PB
Perhaps. Besides, the roadmap is from past year. However, Apple will still need some CPU improvements for the G5 machines before the switch. Going for a 2/3 quad Power Mac line (instead of today's 1/3), or eventually all quad, would hold them for some time without needing CPU feature bumps. As for the iMac, it could take a 970GX in its last PPC iteration, if raising the clock frequency would be an issue.
Unless the transition is going to happen much faster than we think here, which I doubt.
I think we've seen all of the new technology that will ever be in the PPC machines -- you're right in that we might see the quad move down the product line, and various other config improvements... but fundamentally all the PPC tech is already there.
I think the PowerMac will go Intel in late '06 when Intel's next round of processors and chipsets arrive. We are unlikely to see a 3 GHz Mac for some time yet...
Anyways, if Apple needs another iMac/PPC revision, they will have to use a 2 GHz 970mp (if it is not too hot). A single-core iMac/PPC in mid-2006 for $1300+ will be a tough sell going against Yonah, Conroe or Athlon X2 systems.
Originally posted by THT
Anyways, if Apple needs another iMac/PPC revision, they will have to use a 2 GHz 970mp (if it is not too hot).
Without thinking or searching much about it, I would say it is too hot. But then again, there was once a single CPU G5 in the humongous Power Mac case, that did make it to the slim (for a desktop) iMac. Do we have exact power figures to compare?
I'm no expert on this, but I would venture to guess that a slower FSB causes significantly lower heat dissipation, much in the same way a slower CPU does.
That said, I still don't see a multi-core iMac in the near future. Multiple cores is a significant feature that sets PowerMacs apart -- much in the same way DVI and spanning support sets the PowerBooks apart from iBooks.
Originally posted by Chucker
That said, I still don't see a multi-core iMac in the near future. Multiple cores is a significant feature that sets PowerMacs apart -- much in the same way DVI and spanning support sets the PowerBooks apart from iBooks.
The Intel transition will change that. In a year, I would bet that 50% of all computers will be dual core. By 2007, only idiots will be purchasing single core computers. By 2008, the single cores will be gone IMHO.
The iMac is a hot seller and I think they have to make it dual core to cash in on it's high sale numbers. They need to think different and start shoving all they can in each line of computers.
Originally posted by aplnub
The iMac is a hot seller and I think they have to make it dual core to cash in on it's high sale numbers.
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
Of course you're right, though. Macs will eventually move to two cores entirely; at the same time, PowerMacs will go to four, perhaps even eight cores.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
Originally posted by Chucker
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
Of course you're right, though. Macs will eventually move to two cores entirely; at the same time, PowerMacs will go to four, perhaps even eight cores.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
I agree with you.
I was just inserting some extra stuff. Sorry if that came off like I was riding you.
Apple has hot sellers because they keep them fresh. The iPod line and iMac have to be the hotest sellers because they get the most updates. If they stick a single core intel chip in the MacIntel iMac for starters, it will be a dissapointment for those who don't have any Intel software ready to go. That is why I believe they will stick the dual core in and take the safe route but then again, I am just a Kool-Aide clown...
Originally posted by Chucker
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
Of course you're right, though. Macs will eventually move to two cores entirely; at the same time, PowerMacs will go to four, perhaps even eight cores.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
With the PowerMac you get (more) slots, for RAM, add in cards and better graphics cards (very important, and increasingly important for Aperature and other pro tools). As Apple's other pro software is updated to use the Core Image/Video/Sound services I believe the graphics card will be more important than the processor. This will mean if you do go for a consumer Macintosh you will miss out on significant performance.
Originally posted by Chucker
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
Oh, Apple has no trouble making sure their low-end machines don't cannibalize their high-end ones.
If the iMac revision is a 2-2.3 GHz Yonah system in June of 06, Apple can make the PowerMac quads all around or price the 2 lines appropriately. And of course for graphics, I can see them using Intel graphics in the iMac very easily. Very easily.
Originally posted by THT
If the iMac revision is a 2-2.3 GHz Yonah system in June of 06, Apple can make the PowerMac quads all around or price the 2 lines appropriately.
I don't see the iMac taking a 32-bit CPU. Not that the 64-bit G5 it has now is important for more than 1% of consumer. It will be just very bad marketing.
That's why I believe that there will be one more PPC update with either a slightly faster 970FX, or an equally clocked 970GX. The 970MP seems like a dream right now.
Originally posted by Chucker
If it's a hot seller, there's no need to change it. Revisions kick in when there's a trend (kicked in, or expected to kick in soon) towards lower sales.
However, the last iMac update makes me think otherwise.
My point was mainly that of "cannibalization": Apple won't want people to settle for an iMac when they could have afforded a PowerMac, especially in the professional market.
Apple has no other choice in the coming months than to move the 2.3 GHz Power Mac to a quad configuration. This leaves room for a high-end dual core iMac. Although I have a feeling that it is a little soon for such a move, I have seen dual core 3.0 GHz Intel systems at around 1000 euros. CPU-power wise, the iMac is not anymore competitive. Not at all. It is the value of the total package that save it. But for how long?
Will IBM keep producing their 970-based blade servers, or have they wholly gone to the Opteron?
How about this question: Suppose we shoehorn a Cell into a PPC machine, say a blue & white G3. Will we be able to run Mac OS X on it?