IBM employee that works in the 970PPC chip group (anyone else @ IBM is prob. in the dark too)
You don't necessarily have to be in the 970 group. Dude, they are fabbing the chips. Anyone working in the fab who has a clue knows whats up. Whether they give a sh*t about Apple or not is another matter.
While I agree that neither Programmer or moki are insiders, I would like to hear a little more about what they think about these benchmarks. As I see it, the MB benchmarks are a little better than expected but not ridiculous. It is a little suspicious that the G4 and P4 benchmarks are spot on what BareFeats got. I am not sure whether to think that proves they are fake (need help from some smarter people on that). It is also a little strange that the Dual benchmarks are as good as they are for Bryce since it isn't threaded. Here I will take Programmer's word that it doesn't prove it is a fake, but it doesn't seem to make it more likely? I mean that isn't that a big improvement to get out of more Level 3 cache (etc)? I like Programmer's posts on this kind of thing because he usually manages to keep all the various details in mind. So I guess I will second Markus's request for more thoughts from Programmer even if I don't assume he will have THE answer.
I'd also like to hear some cryptic comment from moki because he really does seem to have inside contacts and it would be interesting to know if these benchmarks are in line with what he has been hearing.
The Altivec shows a 80% increase of performances with the 970. This is not due to the chip itself, but to the high speed access between processor and central memory.
The 970's Altivec unit appears to be more similar to the original 7400 rather than the sleeker one in the 7450. Possibly due to different architectural constraints with the 970 cf. G4 (pipeline length, out of order resources, level of refinement/revision, etc.) but, of course, rendered moot by theHUGE bandwidth advantage of the 970. There's a thread somewhere in the Macintosh Acachia at ArsTechnica: the 7450 might beat a 970 MHz for MHz in small, Altivec tests when all of the data is in the cache, but the G4 won't even come close in real world usage.
Quote:
And someone's going to get their backside slapped: I don't even want to think what the NDA on that kit is like...
I may have a friend of a friend in Apple's performance measuring dept. (sounds tenuous, but I kid not ) I'll ask about slappings, but that would probably be under NDA as well.
Quote:
Rage 128 with 8MB VRAM
Didn't Halo run on one of those at MW99?
I reckon the PowerPC 970 is unlikely to use L3 cache (SRAM that fast isn't cheap). The main architectural difference between the configurations apart from the bus speed is could be whether the RAM is dual or single channel. (I'd assume that Apple would use DDR SDRAM rather than RDRAM)
While I agree that neither Programmer or moki are insiders, I would like to hear a little more about what they think about these benchmarks. As I see it, the MB benchmarks are a little better than expected but not ridiculous. It is a little suspicious that the G4 and P4 benchmarks are spot on what BareFeats got. I am not sure whether to think that proves they are fake (need help from some smarter people on that). It is also a little strange that the Dual benchmarks are as good as they are for Bryce since it isn't threaded. Here I will take Programmer's word that it doesn't prove it is a fake, but it doesn't seem to make it more likely? I mean that isn't that a big improvement to get out of more Level 3 cache (etc)? I like Programmer's posts on this kind of thing because he usually manages to keep all the various details in mind. So I guess I will second Markus's request for more thoughts from Programmer even if I don't assume he will have THE answer.
I'd also like to hear some cryptic comment from moki because he really does seem to have inside contacts and it would be interesting to know if these benchmarks are in line with what he has been hearing.
I'm definitely not an Apple insider although people send me things occasionally, apparently for the same reason that you're asking for my opinion. I am an insider on other, occasionally semi-related topics but I'm not going to tell you what I'm not allowed to tell you about.
On the subject of these supposed benchmarks I don't really have an opinion. None of the supposed reasons to reject this information are any better than the information itself. The fact that the non-970 numbers match what BareFeats lists means nothing more than somebody (if these are true) used BareFeats' tests on the 970 box and just quoted BareFeats' results for the older machines to save themselves some work. If I had a 970 box I sure as heck wouldn't be running benchmarks on my 3 GHz P4 or my 1.42 dual G4! Some of the other numbers seem a little inconsistent but we don't know enough about the tests, the hardware, or even how the data was collected, sent to MB, and then transcribed into their article. This stuff is NDA'd up the wazoo so anybody doing this kind of thing is going to be awfully nervous and inclined to make mistakes.
Having said that, however, this is pandering to exactly what we want to hear, and that alone makes it suspect. I don't understand why some people like "playing" others in this way, but some do so you might as well expect it. Usually those people tend to exaggerate it a bit too much... whereas these numbers run on the ragged edge of believability so its either somebody who is good at this or they are real (but possibly a little muddled). They are also traditional Mac benchmarks, as opposed to SPECmarks and Dhrystones, which makes it a little more believable because its the kind of thing the most people have access to.
The 970s are going to be fast, especially on floating point calcs and any memory bound AltiVec code (which is pretty much any AltiVec code). They should also do fairly well with code not specifically optimized for the 970. Apple and it's major partners (like Adobe) may very well have had these machines for a few months now, and important pieces of the OS and apps like Photoshop may have been recompiled and hand optimized for the new processor. The tests put forward by MB are ones that the 970 will likely be good at but the speeds presented... well... I can't say that they are too good to be true, but they are definitely stretching credibility. Apple and IBM have outdone themselves if the numbers are true and I'll be sorely tempted to upgrade if so. If the numbers aren't true then their inventor has been paying attention.
I was reading a post elsewhere that quoted an Ars post stating that the 970 had a weaker int and altivec units than the G4e (is that what is out now, or is that the fabled 7457 or whatever it is numbered)? They mentioned that the altivecs would come out equaly, only because of the better bus on the 970.
Ignoring the bus differences and such, with just looking at the altivec unit, shouldn't they perform the same (why would IBM make a worse one than MOT?)
And can the int performance really be worse? I thought the spec scores showed the 970 trouncing the G4 totally.
I recall some concern about the Pentium IV's ALU not being as efficient clock-for-clock than the Pentium-III. That concern quickly evaporated as Intel powered up the clock speed on the P-IV.
With the first low-end 970 part clocking right about where the 'last gasp' 1.42GHz 7450 part is hitting its limits, and with a 5-6x advantage in FSB bandwidth on the 970, I would wager that a similar pattern will unfold.
I was reading a post elsewhere that quoted an Ars post stating that the 970 had a weaker int and altivec units than the G4e (is that what is out now, or is that the fabled 7457 or whatever it is numbered)? They mentioned that the altivecs would come out equaly, only because of the better bus on the 970.
Ignoring the bus differences and such, with just looking at the altivec unit, shouldn't they perform the same (why would IBM make a worse one than MOT?)
And can the int performance really be worse? I thought the spec scores showed the 970 trouncing the G4 totally.
There are a lot of different parameters involved, and while in some ways the 970s integer units might appear technically weaker than the G4's I suspect that in practice the 970 will do considerably better because of its out-of-order execution, much better bandwidth, and better branch prediction. The same goes for AltiVec. Floating point is the one area nobody argues about.
While we cannot confirm the benchmark results for the PowerPC 970 machines posted by MacBidouille (they claim to have machines running at up to 2.0 GHz, which our sources do _not_ confirm), our sources say the numbers are not too far off. It's true, though, that the machines will require Panther (and will ship with Panther in early August), which hints at a release date for Panther in early August, too.
Still it was interesting to see someone else state the benchmarks were "not too far off". Of course I have no idea if there is anything of value to their comments. I personally don't think that Panther will be "required" for the release of the 970, but am no authority.
MacBidouille seems to have some interesting connections, including both supply line and developers. How reliable their source for the benchmarks is, remains to be seen. It seems is a little tougher for Apple to keep a tight rein on information in the European market. This wouldn't be the first time some crucial information leaked out there, that shouldn't have.
I personally don't think that Panther will be "required" for the release of the 970.
That might simply mean that Panther will be required for full 64-bit API support. In a pedantic mode I can say that if A requires B for full functionality, then A unconditionally requires B because A is crippled without B. You know what I mean. Anyway, you don't need Panther GM to boot 970 and run some 32-bit apps.
Is there any info on the IBM 970 blade servers running Linux?
If so they should give a good estimate of how the 970 behaves IRL.
A google on the subject just turn up the CeBit and the 1.8-2.5 almost 2 months old stuff...
It is my understanding that they are not actually being sold yet. I believe their estimated availability is early July if I recall correctly. I don't think we will have any "real" hard benchmarks until summer. Anything prior to an actual release will be speculative unless IBM actually releases some blade servers for real world testing.
Maybe WWDC will give us something substantial. I personally don't think we will see any thing real before July.
I'm definitely not an Apple insider although people send me things occasionally, apparently for the same reason that you're asking for my opinion. I am an insider on other, occasionally semi-related topics but I'm not going to tell you what I'm not allowed to tell you about.
On the subject of these supposed benchmarks I don't really have an opinion. None of the supposed reasons to reject this information are any better than the information itself. The fact that the non-970 numbers match what BareFeats lists means nothing more than somebody (if these are true) used BareFeats' tests on the 970 box and just quoted BareFeats' results for the older machines to save themselves some work. If I had a 970 box I sure as heck wouldn't be running benchmarks on my 3 GHz P4 or my 1.42 dual G4! Some of the other numbers seem a little inconsistent but we don't know enough about the tests, the hardware, or even how the data was collected, sent to MB, and then transcribed into their article. This stuff is NDA'd up the wazoo so anybody doing this kind of thing is going to be awfully nervous and inclined to make mistakes.
Having said that, however, this is pandering to exactly what we want to hear, and that alone makes it suspect. I don't understand why some people like "playing" others in this way, but some do so you might as well expect it. Usually those people tend to exaggerate it a bit too much... whereas these numbers run on the ragged edge of believability so its either somebody who is good at this or they are real (but possibly a little muddled). They are also traditional Mac benchmarks, as opposed to SPECmarks and Dhrystones, which makes it a little more believable because its the kind of thing the most people have access to.
The 970s are going to be fast, especially on floating point calcs and any memory bound AltiVec code (which is pretty much any AltiVec code). They should also do fairly well with code not specifically optimized for the 970. Apple and it's major partners (like Adobe) may very well have had these machines for a few months now, and important pieces of the OS and apps like Photoshop may have been recompiled and hand optimized for the new processor. The tests put forward by MB are ones that the 970 will likely be good at but the speeds presented... well... I can't say that they are too good to be true, but they are definitely stretching credibility. Apple and IBM have outdone themselves if the numbers are true and I'll be sorely tempted to upgrade if so. If the numbers aren't true then their inventor has been paying attention.
Thank You Programmer for your pertinence and smart answer. That's all I wanted to read from you. I think it's the best Forum to learn some intelligent and serious things that I can't get from anywhere else.
What brings back the rumour to us? - Lionel - 06:02:12
Many have raised this question, and we will answer it:
1) what it does not report to us:
- money: We do not have any advertising contract based on the traffic. Remunerations are contractual or with the purchase (even not with the clic)
- notoriety: If we are right Apple US wants of it, if we are wrong they are our readers.
2) This which pays to us:
- problems of waiter in disorder.
- enmities: If we are right APPLE us wants of it, if we are wrong they are our readers.
- pleasure of sharing information which makes dream.
Thus in short to lose more that to gain.
To finish, if the rumour on the performances époustouflantes of the PPC 970 proves to be false, I would never publish any again. If rumour confirms and that PPC 970 proves to be bomb that us wait all (that of which I am persuaded), I would probably not publish rumours either. These infos will remain confined within the TEAM.
Lionel
Quote:
[ Rumour ] benchs of the PPC 970, continuation - Lionel - 06:00:46
Contacted about the too great similarity between the benchs which we received and those published by Barefeats , our source said to us that APPLE had taken again the figures of the P IV and the dual 1,42 on the site of Barefeats and used their protocol of test. For Bryce, here the explanation which we obtained:
I would have to indicate to you, the benchmarks bryce... but on beta of the following version of bryce, which must arrive in July or August of this year. Version 6 will support configurations multiprocessors... La version beta of Bryce 6 is available on some sites P2P, notably hotline. The true file is Corel Bryce 6 Beta.sit, and it pese has 91.2 MO.
We do not think of in no case with one mystification. Details numbers of the exchanges which we have had for 2 months since were réafirmées on several occasions, to start with the presence of the PPC 970 with the WWDC and optimization 64 Bits of Panther. There we see there primarily a lack of comprehension related to the barrier of the language. For the illuster, here a short quotation of the one of the malls:
It is always extrèmement complicated to give an explanation to postériori, but all those which know us so much is little, will be able to certify to you that mystification never belonged to our defects.
To finish, I will quote now the cèlèbre Bialès de Macêver
However, I will not be able too to advise you to take this with the passing necessary. It is not, as Lionel indicates it, that rumour and it are not thus to take as true information.
I do not say that it is false nor which it is true, I say that it is a rumour.
That might simply mean that Panther will be required for full 64-bit API support. In a pedantic mode I can say that if A requires B for full functionality, then A unconditionally requires B because A is crippled without B. You know what I mean. Anyway, you don't need Panther GM to boot 970 and run some 32-bit apps.
Yes you do. It's a completely new chip. Just because it runs 32-bit apps natively does not mean it will run G4 code natively. And while Apple could build the functionality into a free dot-dot release, they will most likely build minimal (or even more-than-minimal) 970 functionality into their next revenue-generating pussycat, along with a bunch of other stuff. Why else was WWDC delayed? Panther IS that important.
So you need the Golden Master of Panther to be able to run the 970?? What about panther betas? wouldn't they run on the 970 either?? G4-code is infact PowerPC code that is compatible with the 64 bit PPC 970 ISA. The 32 bit PPC ISA is infact a subset of the 64 bit PPC ISA. There may be some driver issues of some sort, but that would be fairly easy to iron out if they were to make 10.2(.6) compatible with the 970.
I'm definitely not an Apple insider although people send me things occasionally, apparently for the same reason that you're asking for my opinion. I am an insider on other, occasionally semi-related topics but I'm not going to tell you what I'm not allowed to tell you about.
Methinks he doth protest too much. Anyone else think that Programmer is really Avie Tevanian slumming it on the AI boards?
For those of you with no humor ability at all, I'm JUST KIDDING. I have the utmost respect for Programmer. He and Moki make this board interesting. That's not to say, however, that I'm not extremely curious as to who Programmer really is, who he works for, and what programs he's worked on. Care to fill us in, Prog?
Yes you do. It's a completely new chip. Just because it runs 32-bit apps natively does not mean it will run G4 code natively. And while Apple could build the functionality into a free dot-dot release, they will most likely build minimal (or even more-than-minimal) 970 functionality into their next revenue-generating pussycat, along with a bunch of other stuff. Why else was WWDC delayed? Panther IS that important.
It's been discussed a thousand times. On these boards too. All that does need reworking is the kernel and certain drivers. And it's backwards-compatible. And it runs existing PPC code natively. Not as efficiently as compiled specifically for it, but without modifications. This means that 99% of Jaguar runs on 970 off the shelf. Point.
Anyone else think that Programmer is really Avie Tevanian slumming it on the AI boards?
LOL , oh... and Avie, if you're listening, say "hello" to Steve from me and tell him that we're looking foreward to watching him officially trounce the P4 on stage ac the WWDC in june.
Comments
IBM employee that works in the 970PPC chip group (anyone else @ IBM is prob. in the dark too)
You don't necessarily have to be in the 970 group. Dude, they are fabbing the chips. Anyone working in the fab who has a clue knows whats up. Whether they give a sh*t about Apple or not is another matter.
I'd also like to hear some cryptic comment from moki because he really does seem to have inside contacts and it would be interesting to know if these benchmarks are in line with what he has been hearing.
The Altivec shows a 80% increase of performances with the 970. This is not due to the chip itself, but to the high speed access between processor and central memory.
The 970's Altivec unit appears to be more similar to the original 7400 rather than the sleeker one in the 7450. Possibly due to different architectural constraints with the 970 cf. G4 (pipeline length, out of order resources, level of refinement/revision, etc.) but, of course, rendered moot by theHUGE bandwidth advantage of the 970. There's a thread somewhere in the Macintosh Acachia at ArsTechnica: the 7450 might beat a 970 MHz for MHz in small, Altivec tests when all of the data is in the cache, but the G4 won't even come close in real world usage.
And someone's going to get their backside slapped: I don't even want to think what the NDA on that kit is like...
I may have a friend of a friend in Apple's performance measuring dept. (sounds tenuous, but I kid not
Rage 128 with 8MB VRAM
Didn't Halo run on one of those at MW99?
I reckon the PowerPC 970 is unlikely to use L3 cache (SRAM that fast isn't cheap). The main architectural difference between the configurations apart from the bus speed is could be whether the RAM is dual or single channel. (I'd assume that Apple would use DDR SDRAM rather than RDRAM)
Originally posted by JBL
While I agree that neither Programmer or moki are insiders, I would like to hear a little more about what they think about these benchmarks. As I see it, the MB benchmarks are a little better than expected but not ridiculous. It is a little suspicious that the G4 and P4 benchmarks are spot on what BareFeats got. I am not sure whether to think that proves they are fake (need help from some smarter people on that). It is also a little strange that the Dual benchmarks are as good as they are for Bryce since it isn't threaded. Here I will take Programmer's word that it doesn't prove it is a fake, but it doesn't seem to make it more likely? I mean that isn't that a big improvement to get out of more Level 3 cache (etc)? I like Programmer's posts on this kind of thing because he usually manages to keep all the various details in mind. So I guess I will second Markus's request for more thoughts from Programmer even if I don't assume he will have THE answer.
I'd also like to hear some cryptic comment from moki because he really does seem to have inside contacts and it would be interesting to know if these benchmarks are in line with what he has been hearing.
I'm definitely not an Apple insider although people send me things occasionally, apparently for the same reason that you're asking for my opinion. I am an insider on other, occasionally semi-related topics but I'm not going to tell you what I'm not allowed to tell you about.
On the subject of these supposed benchmarks I don't really have an opinion. None of the supposed reasons to reject this information are any better than the information itself. The fact that the non-970 numbers match what BareFeats lists means nothing more than somebody (if these are true) used BareFeats' tests on the 970 box and just quoted BareFeats' results for the older machines to save themselves some work. If I had a 970 box I sure as heck wouldn't be running benchmarks on my 3 GHz P4 or my 1.42 dual G4! Some of the other numbers seem a little inconsistent but we don't know enough about the tests, the hardware, or even how the data was collected, sent to MB, and then transcribed into their article. This stuff is NDA'd up the wazoo so anybody doing this kind of thing is going to be awfully nervous and inclined to make mistakes.
Having said that, however, this is pandering to exactly what we want to hear, and that alone makes it suspect. I don't understand why some people like "playing" others in this way, but some do so you might as well expect it. Usually those people tend to exaggerate it a bit too much... whereas these numbers run on the ragged edge of believability so its either somebody who is good at this or they are real (but possibly a little muddled). They are also traditional Mac benchmarks, as opposed to SPECmarks and Dhrystones, which makes it a little more believable because its the kind of thing the most people have access to.
The 970s are going to be fast, especially on floating point calcs and any memory bound AltiVec code (which is pretty much any AltiVec code). They should also do fairly well with code not specifically optimized for the 970. Apple and it's major partners (like Adobe) may very well have had these machines for a few months now, and important pieces of the OS and apps like Photoshop may have been recompiled and hand optimized for the new processor. The tests put forward by MB are ones that the 970 will likely be good at but the speeds presented... well... I can't say that they are too good to be true, but they are definitely stretching credibility. Apple and IBM have outdone themselves if the numbers are true and I'll be sorely tempted to upgrade if so. If the numbers aren't true then their inventor has been paying attention.
Ignoring the bus differences and such, with just looking at the altivec unit, shouldn't they perform the same (why would IBM make a worse one than MOT?)
And can the int performance really be worse? I thought the spec scores showed the 970 trouncing the G4 totally.
With the first low-end 970 part clocking right about where the 'last gasp' 1.42GHz 7450 part is hitting its limits, and with a 5-6x advantage in FSB bandwidth on the 970, I would wager that a similar pattern will unfold.
Originally posted by kupan787
I was reading a post elsewhere that quoted an Ars post stating that the 970 had a weaker int and altivec units than the G4e (is that what is out now, or is that the fabled 7457 or whatever it is numbered)? They mentioned that the altivecs would come out equaly, only because of the better bus on the 970.
Ignoring the bus differences and such, with just looking at the altivec unit, shouldn't they perform the same (why would IBM make a worse one than MOT?)
And can the int performance really be worse? I thought the spec scores showed the 970 trouncing the G4 totally.
There are a lot of different parameters involved, and while in some ways the 970s integer units might appear technically weaker than the G4's I suspect that in practice the 970 will do considerably better because of its out-of-order execution, much better bandwidth, and better branch prediction. The same goes for AltiVec. Floating point is the one area nobody argues about.
While we cannot confirm the benchmark results for the PowerPC 970 machines posted by MacBidouille (they claim to have machines running at up to 2.0 GHz, which our sources do _not_ confirm), our sources say the numbers are not too far off. It's true, though, that the machines will require Panther (and will ship with Panther in early August), which hints at a release date for Panther in early August, too.
Still it was interesting to see someone else state the benchmarks were "not too far off". Of course I have no idea if there is anything of value to their comments. I personally don't think that Panther will be "required" for the release of the 970, but am no authority.
MacBidouille seems to have some interesting connections, including both supply line and developers. How reliable their source for the benchmarks is, remains to be seen. It seems is a little tougher for Apple to keep a tight rein on information in the European market. This wouldn't be the first time some crucial information leaked out there, that shouldn't have.
Just hoping and waiting...
If so they should give a good estimate of how the 970 behaves IRL.
A google on the subject just turn up the CeBit and the 1.8-2.5 almost 2 months old stuff...
Originally posted by Shaktai
I personally don't think that Panther will be "required" for the release of the 970.
That might simply mean that Panther will be required for full 64-bit API support. In a pedantic mode I can say that if A requires B for full functionality, then A unconditionally requires B because A is crippled without B. You know what I mean. Anyway, you don't need Panther GM to boot 970 and run some 32-bit apps.
Originally posted by DrBoar
Is there any info on the IBM 970 blade servers running Linux?
If so they should give a good estimate of how the 970 behaves IRL.
A google on the subject just turn up the CeBit and the 1.8-2.5 almost 2 months old stuff...
It is my understanding that they are not actually being sold yet. I believe their estimated availability is early July if I recall correctly. I don't think we will have any "real" hard benchmarks until summer. Anything prior to an actual release will be speculative unless IBM actually releases some blade servers for real world testing.
Maybe WWDC will give us something substantial. I personally don't think we will see any thing real before July.
Originally posted by Programmer
I'm definitely not an Apple insider although people send me things occasionally, apparently for the same reason that you're asking for my opinion. I am an insider on other, occasionally semi-related topics but I'm not going to tell you what I'm not allowed to tell you about.
On the subject of these supposed benchmarks I don't really have an opinion. None of the supposed reasons to reject this information are any better than the information itself. The fact that the non-970 numbers match what BareFeats lists means nothing more than somebody (if these are true) used BareFeats' tests on the 970 box and just quoted BareFeats' results for the older machines to save themselves some work. If I had a 970 box I sure as heck wouldn't be running benchmarks on my 3 GHz P4 or my 1.42 dual G4! Some of the other numbers seem a little inconsistent but we don't know enough about the tests, the hardware, or even how the data was collected, sent to MB, and then transcribed into their article. This stuff is NDA'd up the wazoo so anybody doing this kind of thing is going to be awfully nervous and inclined to make mistakes.
Having said that, however, this is pandering to exactly what we want to hear, and that alone makes it suspect. I don't understand why some people like "playing" others in this way, but some do so you might as well expect it. Usually those people tend to exaggerate it a bit too much... whereas these numbers run on the ragged edge of believability so its either somebody who is good at this or they are real (but possibly a little muddled). They are also traditional Mac benchmarks, as opposed to SPECmarks and Dhrystones, which makes it a little more believable because its the kind of thing the most people have access to.
The 970s are going to be fast, especially on floating point calcs and any memory bound AltiVec code (which is pretty much any AltiVec code). They should also do fairly well with code not specifically optimized for the 970. Apple and it's major partners (like Adobe) may very well have had these machines for a few months now, and important pieces of the OS and apps like Photoshop may have been recompiled and hand optimized for the new processor. The tests put forward by MB are ones that the 970 will likely be good at but the speeds presented... well... I can't say that they are too good to be true, but they are definitely stretching credibility. Apple and IBM have outdone themselves if the numbers are true and I'll be sorely tempted to upgrade if so. If the numbers aren't true then their inventor has been paying attention.
Thank You Programmer for your pertinence and smart answer. That's all I wanted to read from you. I think it's the best Forum to learn some intelligent and serious things that I can't get from anywhere else.
What brings back the rumour to us? - Lionel - 06:02:12
Many have raised this question, and we will answer it:
1) what it does not report to us:
- money: We do not have any advertising contract based on the traffic. Remunerations are contractual or with the purchase (even not with the clic)
- notoriety: If we are right Apple US wants of it, if we are wrong they are our readers.
2) This which pays to us:
- problems of waiter in disorder.
- enmities: If we are right APPLE us wants of it, if we are wrong they are our readers.
- pleasure of sharing information which makes dream.
Thus in short to lose more that to gain.
To finish, if the rumour on the performances époustouflantes of the PPC 970 proves to be false, I would never publish any again. If rumour confirms and that PPC 970 proves to be bomb that us wait all (that of which I am persuaded), I would probably not publish rumours either. These infos will remain confined within the TEAM.
Lionel
[ Rumour ] benchs of the PPC 970, continuation - Lionel - 06:00:46
Contacted about the too great similarity between the benchs which we received and those published by Barefeats , our source said to us that APPLE had taken again the figures of the P IV and the dual 1,42 on the site of Barefeats and used their protocol of test. For Bryce, here the explanation which we obtained:
I would have to indicate to you, the benchmarks bryce... but on beta of the following version of bryce, which must arrive in July or August of this year. Version 6 will support configurations multiprocessors... La version beta of Bryce 6 is available on some sites P2P, notably hotline. The true file is Corel Bryce 6 Beta.sit, and it pese has 91.2 MO.
We do not think of in no case with one mystification. Details numbers of the exchanges which we have had for 2 months since were réafirmées on several occasions, to start with the presence of the PPC 970 with the WWDC and optimization 64 Bits of Panther. There we see there primarily a lack of comprehension related to the barrier of the language. For the illuster, here a short quotation of the one of the malls:
It is always extrèmement complicated to give an explanation to postériori, but all those which know us so much is little, will be able to certify to you that mystification never belonged to our defects.
To finish, I will quote now the cèlèbre Bialès de Macêver
However, I will not be able too to advise you to take this with the passing necessary. It is not, as Lionel indicates it, that rumour and it are not thus to take as true information.
I do not say that it is false nor which it is true, I say that it is a rumour.
Originally posted by costique
That might simply mean that Panther will be required for full 64-bit API support. In a pedantic mode I can say that if A requires B for full functionality, then A unconditionally requires B because A is crippled without B. You know what I mean. Anyway, you don't need Panther GM to boot 970 and run some 32-bit apps.
Yes you do. It's a completely new chip. Just because it runs 32-bit apps natively does not mean it will run G4 code natively. And while Apple could build the functionality into a free dot-dot release, they will most likely build minimal (or even more-than-minimal) 970 functionality into their next revenue-generating pussycat, along with a bunch of other stuff. Why else was WWDC delayed? Panther IS that important.
Originally posted by DCQ
Yes you do. It's a completely new chip.
So you need the Golden Master of Panther to be able to run the 970?? What about panther betas? wouldn't they run on the 970 either?? G4-code is infact PowerPC code that is compatible with the 64 bit PPC 970 ISA. The 32 bit PPC ISA is infact a subset of the 64 bit PPC ISA. There may be some driver issues of some sort, but that would be fairly easy to iron out if they were to make 10.2(.6) compatible with the 970.
Originally posted by Programmer
I'm definitely not an Apple insider although people send me things occasionally, apparently for the same reason that you're asking for my opinion. I am an insider on other, occasionally semi-related topics but I'm not going to tell you what I'm not allowed to tell you about.
Methinks he doth protest too much. Anyone else think that Programmer is really Avie Tevanian slumming it on the AI boards?
For those of you with no humor ability at all, I'm JUST KIDDING. I have the utmost respect for Programmer. He and Moki make this board interesting. That's not to say, however, that I'm not extremely curious as to who Programmer really is, who he works for, and what programs he's worked on. Care to fill us in, Prog?
Originally posted by DCQ
Yes you do. It's a completely new chip. Just because it runs 32-bit apps natively does not mean it will run G4 code natively. And while Apple could build the functionality into a free dot-dot release, they will most likely build minimal (or even more-than-minimal) 970 functionality into their next revenue-generating pussycat, along with a bunch of other stuff. Why else was WWDC delayed? Panther IS that important.
It's been discussed a thousand times. On these boards too. All that does need reworking is the kernel and certain drivers. And it's backwards-compatible. And it runs existing PPC code natively. Not as efficiently as compiled specifically for it, but without modifications. This means that 99% of Jaguar runs on 970 off the shelf. Point.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
Anyone else think that Programmer is really Avie Tevanian slumming it on the AI boards?
LOL