"A source inside one of the three OEM manufacturing companies now preparing bids on producing the two next generation PowerMac motherboards offered additional information about the new boards late Thursday.
"According to our source, the new motherboards are designed around the IBM PPC 970 processor, with one board being a single processor design, and the other running two processors. This source states that he has seen and inspected pre-production board samples populated with the PPC 970 chips. Additionally, the bid deadline for constructing these boards was reaffirmed as March 28th, only one-week from today."
Most interesting IMO is that - if true of course - it clarifies the reason for two mother-boards: for single and dual PPC 970s. So Apple is going to give us Duals, probably like the current PowerMac arrangement. Perhaps Single 1.4 Ghz / Dual 1.6 / Dual 1.8. The price and yield forecasts must be OK.
And it means that production is going ahead, hopefully in time for a MWNY announcement (and pre-orders?) by Phil Schiller, and I would expect release alongside 10.3 in August/Sept.
Steve Jobs will do his big splash keynote at WWDC in June, demonstrating 10.3 on PPC970 prototypes.
The surprises may come with what else is in the chip set, according to hints in other threads (Moki, Transcendental). And, at last, we have an IBM roadmap for further advancement of the PPC that is very promising.
I hope this is the reality, because if so, the future for our platform of choice is rosy indeed. We'll soon see...
Bidding deadline is late March according to the article. How long does it usually take Apple to dicide over the bidders and how long it takes from the production of the first mainboards to the production of actual systems? How much prototyping is involved in the mainboard production process?
Bidding deadline is late March according to the article. How long does it usually take Apple to dicide over the bidders and how long it takes from the production of the first mainboards to the production of actual systems? How much prototyping is involved in the mainboard production process?
This appears to be for mass production, in other words all of the development/prototyping work has been. These are the final article.
As for how long Apple takes.... who knows? My guess is it will be very quick. Time to production... No idea. If I were to guess ... 4-6weeks to tool the line.
Personally i rather see two single CPU configuration and only a MP one.
If there was two dual in the past, it was because the G4 was not enough performant. With the 970 it will be different. I'll take a 1,4 PPC 970 over any dual 1,42 G4 (except in some pure altivec stuff, perhaps).
Some rumors said that IBM already produced 2,5 ghz chip, but i think that we will see at first only a top-speed of 1,8 ghz. The 2,5 ghz thing will only bring some room for the future, with a possiblity of updating the product before transiting to the 0,09 nm process.
Personally i rather see two single CPU configuration and only a MP one.
If there was two dual in the past, it was because the G4 was not enough performant. With the 970 it will be different. I'll take a 1,4 PPC 970 over any dual 1,42 G4 (except in some pure altivec stuff, perhaps).
Some rumors said that IBM already produced 2,5 ghz chip, but i think that we will see at first only a top-speed of 1,8 ghz. The 2,5 ghz thing will only bring some room for the future, with a possiblity of updating the product before transiting to the 0,09 nm process.
I'll say :
1,4 single , 1,6 single, and dual 1,8 .
I think Apple might go the whole hog and release a single 1.8 and a dual 1.8...
I feel Apple needs to beat Wintel performance, not just catch up (with a single PPC 970), especially at their usual hefty prices. So I'd like to see duals in all the line up. But the two boards implies that's not going to happen - they seem to like to offer the 'cheap' single processor PowerMac. Maybe the single processor model really will be offered at a bargain price, that'd be something!
Robster's suggestion of having a single 1.8 and a dual 1.8 is perhaps wishful thinking, as normally yields determine the speed and price of processors, so that the 1.4 processor - which can't handle being run at 1.8 - comes cheaper, which of course suit the budget of the low-end model.
I feel Apple needs to beat Wintel performance, not just catch up (with a single PPC 970), especially at their usual hefty prices. So I'd like to see duals in all the line up. But the two boards implies that's not going to happen - they seem to like to offer the 'cheap' single processor PowerMac. Maybe the single processor model really will be offered at a bargain price, that'd be something!
Robster's suggestion of having a single 1.8 and a dual 1.8 is perhaps wishful thinking, as normally yields determine the speed and price of processors, so that the 1.4 processor - which can't handle being run at 1.8 - comes cheaper, which of course suit the budget of the low-end model.
... or there won't be powermac at a bargain price only duals
and the mobo for one processor is ment for the powerbook and imac
Well, the current G4s use the same motherboard design for both the single and dual processor models. The processors are mounted on interchangeable daughtercards. Commonality - why increase design and production costs when one design can do both?
I can only assume therefore that Apple is moving away from this approach, and returning to the old processor on the motherboard interface. Does this mean that the single processor version will never be able to support dual processors? Does this mean that the 970 will appear in two product families?
Is there any reason to believe that both of these motherboards are destined for the Power Mac line? Perhaps the single will appear in the Power Mac (and we'll never see duals) and the dual is for a new xserve or a kick-ass new workstation family?
Is there a market for two Power Mac lines? A low cost variant for the majority of us and an ultra high performance workstation class machine for the render farms etc.?
Well, the current G4s use the same motherboard design for both the single and dual processor models. The processors are mounted on interchangeable daughtercards. Commonality - why increase design and production costs when one design can do both?
I can only assume therefore that Apple is moving away from this approach, and returning to the old processor on the motherboard interface. Does this mean that the single processor version will never be able to support dual processors? Does this mean that the 970 will appear in two product families?
Is there any reason to believe that both of these motherboards are destined for the Power Mac line? Perhaps the single will appear in the Power Mac (and we'll never see duals) and the dual is for a new xserve or a kick-ass new workstation family?
\
The old G4 uses a shared bus (FSB), and therefore does not need different motherboard designs to support multiple processors. Bandwidth is the same, even if the need for bandwidth is double (dual processors). The PPC970 is different, and needs a different companion chip when the number of processors differ. This is to be sure that the processors are fed with data, when the number of processors double, the bandwidth they need is double, even though the 2:1 FSB feeds 6,4GB/s (that is approx. 6 times as much as the G4 bus) when the processor clocks at 1,8Ghz. The PPC970 is designed for MP, and with this design, the processors will always be fed with data, equally (if the workload if large enough of course) on 1, 2, 4 and n-way designs.
(I know this is a terrible post, but I hope it made some sense.)
Apple should use the fastest available chip in the low end single CPU machine, and duals in the other two. PM's are still very expensive and with 970 backed performance they'll better justify their current prices but will still ALL fall in the high-end. 1500 for a machine without a display? Not good, considering that a single low speed ppc970 will not offer any kind of performance revelation over far cheaper x86 boxen, the game is either to use the fastest 970's available or duals.
1.8 single, dual 1.4, and dual 1.8. Same configs as currently used. Or they could possibly use something just a mite slower in the low end and include a superdrive, which at the price ought to be included in all PM's, or they could, gasp, further lower the price of the entry level tower.
Apple should use the fastest available chip in the low end single CPU machine, and duals in the other two. PM's are still very expensive and with 970 backed performance they'll better justify their current prices but will still ALL fall in the high-end. 1500 for a machine without a display? Not good, considering that a single low speed ppc970 will not offer any kind of performance revelation over far cheaper x86 boxen, the game is either to use the fastest 970's available or duals.
1.8 single, dual 1.4, and dual 1.8. Same configs as currently used. Or they could possibly use something just a mite slower in the low end and include a superdrive, which at the price ought to be included in all PM's, or they could, gasp, further lower the price of the entry level tower.
I think that's a good idea, but who knows if there will be enough chips of whatever the high end clock rate winds up being to do that.
Woops, just say the "just a mite slower in the low end" part of your post, which makes mine a little pointless, but oh well!
I would hope that Apple doesn't go straight into putting the 970 inside iMacs (speaking regarding the idea that the second mobo w/ single proc. could be for iMac or PowerBook). Thing is, we're blind as to what's going on on these motherboards -- specifically, if one's being cut to a circle.
I would hope that Apple puts the 970 in a 15" PowerBook first; this would explain the delay on the Aluminum-ized version. The iMac needs to stay a consumer model unless the price change with a 970 is minimal.
I would hope that Apple puts the 970 in a 15" PowerBook first; this would explain the delay on the Aluminum-ized version. The iMac needs to stay a consumer model unless the price change with a 970 is minimal.
Maybe the iMac and PowerBooks will share a motherboard
Comments
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Lets hope this is true.
http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers...ves/000050.php
I see no mention of PowerMac or Apple.
Originally posted by strobe
I see no mention of PowerMac or Apple.
If you read the article it mentions the PowerMac. Right in the first paragraph.
The text doesn't have much contrast.
"A source inside one of the three OEM manufacturing companies now preparing bids on producing the two next generation PowerMac motherboards offered additional information about the new boards late Thursday.
"According to our source, the new motherboards are designed around the IBM PPC 970 processor, with one board being a single processor design, and the other running two processors. This source states that he has seen and inspected pre-production board samples populated with the PPC 970 chips. Additionally, the bid deadline for constructing these boards was reaffirmed as March 28th, only one-week from today."
Most interesting IMO is that - if true of course - it clarifies the reason for two mother-boards: for single and dual PPC 970s. So Apple is going to give us Duals, probably like the current PowerMac arrangement. Perhaps Single 1.4 Ghz / Dual 1.6 / Dual 1.8. The price and yield forecasts must be OK.
And it means that production is going ahead, hopefully in time for a MWNY announcement (and pre-orders?) by Phil Schiller, and I would expect release alongside 10.3 in August/Sept.
Steve Jobs will do his big splash keynote at WWDC in June, demonstrating 10.3 on PPC970 prototypes.
The surprises may come with what else is in the chip set, according to hints in other threads (Moki, Transcendental). And, at last, we have an IBM roadmap for further advancement of the PPC that is very promising.
I hope this is the reality, because if so, the future for our platform of choice is rosy indeed. We'll soon see...
Originally posted by RolandG
Bidding deadline is late March according to the article. How long does it usually take Apple to dicide over the bidders and how long it takes from the production of the first mainboards to the production of actual systems? How much prototyping is involved in the mainboard production process?
This appears to be for mass production, in other words all of the development/prototyping work has been. These are the final article.
As for how long Apple takes.... who knows? My guess is it will be very quick. Time to production... No idea. If I were to guess ... 4-6weeks to tool the line.
If there was two dual in the past, it was because the G4 was not enough performant. With the 970 it will be different. I'll take a 1,4 PPC 970 over any dual 1,42 G4 (except in some pure altivec stuff, perhaps).
Some rumors said that IBM already produced 2,5 ghz chip, but i think that we will see at first only a top-speed of 1,8 ghz. The 2,5 ghz thing will only bring some room for the future, with a possiblity of updating the product before transiting to the 0,09 nm process.
I'll say :
1,4 single , 1,6 single, and dual 1,8 .
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Personally i rather see two single CPU configuration and only a MP one.
If there was two dual in the past, it was because the G4 was not enough performant. With the 970 it will be different. I'll take a 1,4 PPC 970 over any dual 1,42 G4 (except in some pure altivec stuff, perhaps).
Some rumors said that IBM already produced 2,5 ghz chip, but i think that we will see at first only a top-speed of 1,8 ghz. The 2,5 ghz thing will only bring some room for the future, with a possiblity of updating the product before transiting to the 0,09 nm process.
I'll say :
1,4 single , 1,6 single, and dual 1,8 .
I think Apple might go the whole hog and release a single 1.8 and a dual 1.8...
Why limit the PowerMac to 1.4?
Robster's suggestion of having a single 1.8 and a dual 1.8 is perhaps wishful thinking, as normally yields determine the speed and price of processors, so that the 1.4 processor - which can't handle being run at 1.8 - comes cheaper, which of course suit the budget of the low-end model.
Originally posted by Jupiter
I feel Apple needs to beat Wintel performance, not just catch up (with a single PPC 970), especially at their usual hefty prices. So I'd like to see duals in all the line up. But the two boards implies that's not going to happen - they seem to like to offer the 'cheap' single processor PowerMac. Maybe the single processor model really will be offered at a bargain price, that'd be something!
Robster's suggestion of having a single 1.8 and a dual 1.8 is perhaps wishful thinking, as normally yields determine the speed and price of processors, so that the 1.4 processor - which can't handle being run at 1.8 - comes cheaper, which of course suit the budget of the low-end model.
... or there won't be powermac at a bargain price only duals
and the mobo for one processor is ment for the powerbook and imac
Originally posted by gar
... or there won't be powermac at a bargain price only duals
and the mobo for one processor is ment for the powerbook and imac
that would be really cool and right 8)
I can only assume therefore that Apple is moving away from this approach, and returning to the old processor on the motherboard interface. Does this mean that the single processor version will never be able to support dual processors? Does this mean that the 970 will appear in two product families?
Is there any reason to believe that both of these motherboards are destined for the Power Mac line? Perhaps the single will appear in the Power Mac (and we'll never see duals) and the dual is for a new xserve or a kick-ass new workstation family?
Is there a market for two Power Mac lines? A low cost variant for the majority of us and an ultra high performance workstation class machine for the render farms etc.?
What do you guys think?
Originally posted by Messiah
Well, the current G4s use the same motherboard design for both the single and dual processor models. The processors are mounted on interchangeable daughtercards. Commonality - why increase design and production costs when one design can do both?
I can only assume therefore that Apple is moving away from this approach, and returning to the old processor on the motherboard interface. Does this mean that the single processor version will never be able to support dual processors? Does this mean that the 970 will appear in two product families?
Is there any reason to believe that both of these motherboards are destined for the Power Mac line? Perhaps the single will appear in the Power Mac (and we'll never see duals) and the dual is for a new xserve or a kick-ass new workstation family?
The old G4 uses a shared bus (FSB), and therefore does not need different motherboard designs to support multiple processors. Bandwidth is the same, even if the need for bandwidth is double (dual processors). The PPC970 is different, and needs a different companion chip when the number of processors differ. This is to be sure that the processors are fed with data, when the number of processors double, the bandwidth they need is double, even though the 2:1 FSB feeds 6,4GB/s (that is approx. 6 times as much as the G4 bus) when the processor clocks at 1,8Ghz. The PPC970 is designed for MP, and with this design, the processors will always be fed with data, equally (if the workload if large enough of course) on 1, 2, 4 and n-way designs.
(I know this is a terrible post, but I hope it made some sense.)
single 1.4
single 1.8
dual 1.6
Single 1.4
Single 1.6
Dual 1.8
-OR-
Single 1.4
Dual 1.6
Dual 1.8
1.8 single, dual 1.4, and dual 1.8. Same configs as currently used. Or they could possibly use something just a mite slower in the low end and include a superdrive, which at the price ought to be included in all PM's, or they could, gasp, further lower the price of the entry level tower.
Originally posted by Matsu
Apple should use the fastest available chip in the low end single CPU machine, and duals in the other two. PM's are still very expensive and with 970 backed performance they'll better justify their current prices but will still ALL fall in the high-end. 1500 for a machine without a display? Not good, considering that a single low speed ppc970 will not offer any kind of performance revelation over far cheaper x86 boxen, the game is either to use the fastest 970's available or duals.
1.8 single, dual 1.4, and dual 1.8. Same configs as currently used. Or they could possibly use something just a mite slower in the low end and include a superdrive, which at the price ought to be included in all PM's, or they could, gasp, further lower the price of the entry level tower.
I think that's a good idea, but who knows if there will be enough chips of whatever the high end clock rate winds up being to do that.
Woops, just say the "just a mite slower in the low end" part of your post, which makes mine a little pointless, but oh well!
I would hope that Apple puts the 970 in a 15" PowerBook first; this would explain the delay on the Aluminum-ized version. The iMac needs to stay a consumer model unless the price change with a 970 is minimal.
Originally posted by fred_lj
I would hope that Apple puts the 970 in a 15" PowerBook first; this would explain the delay on the Aluminum-ized version. The iMac needs to stay a consumer model unless the price change with a 970 is minimal.
Maybe the iMac and PowerBooks will share a motherboard
Pim