I dont see what you mean.On all the processor intensive tests the 1.42 scores just about where it should relative to the 1.25.It does look like the drives are slower or something on the new machines.
The tests are done on the machines not necessarily the processors. I was speaking to the speed of the machines as they come from the factory.
I take it that your not too pleased w/ Motorola at this point.
I hope your saying this sarcastically, I believe in the long run it would be benefical, for both Apple and Motorola, if Motorola could continue to provide cpu's for Apple's needs. Something along the lines of the mythical MPC8540/MPC8560's but with a core designed for desktop use. I guess I'm disappointed w/ Motorola, but believe business' shouldn't hold a grudge.
I believe in the long run it would be benefical, for both Apple and Motorola, if Motorola could continue to provide cpu's for Apple's needs. Something along the lines of the mythical MPC8540/MPC8560's but with a core designed for desktop use.
If IBM can produce the needed volume of CPUs to supply the Macintosh market why would it be beneficial to keep Motorola? Are you thinking it would lead to a price war on CPUs?
Just curious. I would think we'd want to send as much business IBM's way as possible.
Regarding the "cost" for IBM to spit out the 970, I imagine that the profit is already built in, even with the creative accounting that IBM appears to provide.
How much does it cost to run an order of 970's thorugh the fab? From what I've read, that kind of production process is what the new plant is designed for.
The "cost" of the 970 will not be in the design of the chip, nor the price tag of the new foundry -- those costs are already on the books. So the "profit" of the 970 will be in selling the chips that they produce, which should be clear cut since Apple will place the orders and then purchase them.
It can't hurt to have 2 suppliers, as long as any motherboard differences aren't too expensive(one concern I have between the 970 and future G4's). Two large manufacturers devoting R&D in developing PPC tech would be beneficial in that different paths may lead to different, more effecient solutions, for example Altivec; IBM initially not impressed, now IBM sufficiently impressed(this may not be a good example, but I don't care. )
Having both IBM(big iron/server) and Motorola(embedded) still designing processors for desktops also in my weird alternative universe reasoning means that the PPC architecture/ISA covers everything from embedded chips in autos, airplanes, routers, DSP's to mainframes and massively parallel computing, using fundamentally the same ISA or extensions of the ISA. How can this not be a good thing?
Competition between IBM and Motorola may become a good thing if Apple increases market share. There hasn't been any real competition between IBM & Motorola for Apples business, Motorola has been selling the G4 for the high end Apple computers, while IBM continued w/ the G3. IBM didn't push the envelope on the G3, I think, because there was not market - Motorola had it.
Also, it(having 2 large companies as suppliers) would mean that Apple is selling enough computers(re: a lot more than today) to keep 2 very large companies happy selling them processors, designed for desktops/servers. And every Mac zealot knows that would mean only one thing - world domination for the Mac
To expand a bit on rickag's response. I think one only needs to look at Intel/AMD to see the benefit of competition. They are fighting hard to best each other, and Apple needs that sort of competition between its chip suppliers. Whether Apple is big enough to warrant two suppliers is another question
Really, if you look at it from Moto's standpoint, why should they spend a lot of resources on the G4 for Apple, when Apple did not have a second supplier to jump to. Apple didn't have a choice, and Moto knew it. (Of course, that totally ignores the poor business climate, but I think it still applies). Now Apple has someone else to supply them with processors, and Moto is feeling the heat - they either try to get in the game again and compete, or they fold up and go home. It is good for Apple, no question. The question is whether Moto can compete.
The timing of this is announcement is very interesting, isn't it?
I don't see any sense in hoping that mot fails, the opposite sould be the case! We all should hope the mot and IBM are starting to compete again, it help the x86 so much that AMD is fighting Intel. If mot leaves the party and IBM does another "Somerset" the real trouble starts.
My fear is that IF Moto manages to offer a G4 that is better than today's iteration by a little bit, then Apple will take the bait and use it. End result: Mac users get inferior hardware.
I want Apple to be forced to use a fast FSB in all Macs, because I don't trust them to use one by choice. Even though Apple has had no choice in FSB and memory speeds for years due to Moto, I fear what Apple will do when offered a choice. Suppose you were shopping for stereos and your wife didn't trust you not to buy ultra-high end equipment (no adcom, NAD, McIntosh, B&W, etc.). So your wife goes with you, and she simply doesn't allow you to go to any specialty stereo shops, so you can't even LOOK at high end stereos. Well I want this to happen to Apple, but in reverse. I want someone to barricade Best Buy so Apple is forced to buy their home stereo at "Overture Audio" or the "Stereo Shoppe".
Thus, I don't want Moto to offer Apple the choice of using a G4 w/ 200 MHz FSB (no DDR support). I don't trust Apple to tell them to go to hell. I'd rather Moto offered them crap, and Apple had to use the PPC 970 in iMacs/iBooks because the only alternative was an antiquated, expensive G4.
I'm not putting Apple on a pedestal at all by blaming Motorola for the sorry state of Mac hardware.
As for blaming IBM, the key reason Apple hasn't used IBM chips in the high end is because Altivec support was more important than the extra MHz IBM could offer. Of course we don't know what sort of wheelin' and dealin' brought about the 970, but based on normal chip development times, it would seem that Apple went to IBM for a solution soon after after the G4 introduction debacle. If so, then the answer to "where has IBM been for the past 3 years", is actually, "IBM has been busy developing a CPU to save Apple from Moto's G4". I don't see how it would be right to blame IBM when Apple's problem is that the G4 didn't turn out to scale and perform like the CPU originally promised by Moto, and the only role IBM played is to develop a better PPC CPU as soon as it was apparent that Moto's G4 was a bust.
My fear is that IF Moto manages to offer a G4 that is better than today's iteration by a little bit, then Apple will take the bait and use it. End result: Mac users get inferior hardware.
I want Apple to be forced to use a fast FSB in all Macs, because I don't trust them to use one by choice. Even though Apple has had no choice in FSB and memory speeds for years due to Moto, I fear what Apple will do when offered a choice.
Let's see what mot has to offer period. People here already claiming how much better the 970 will be comparing to all that mot had to offer. How con anybody know what's going to happen? I do know that mot failed in the last years but still telling the future by the past is a heurism!
Quote:
As for blaming IBM, the key reason Apple hasn't used IBM chips in the high end is because Altivec support was more important than the extra MHz IBM could offer.
Which extra mhz? This is a classical internet myth. IBM didn't offer faster PPC CPUs than Mot at any time! They had various prototypes at higher speed but no real product. Look at the power4 and their mhz! Keep in mind they're low volume series.
Quote:
Of course we don't know what sort of wheelin' and dealin' brought about the 970, but based on normal chip development times, it would seem that Apple went to IBM for a solution soon after after the G4 introduction debacle. If so, then the answer to "where has IBM been for the past 3 years", is actually, "IBM has been busy developing a CPU to save Apple from Moto's G4". I don't see how it would be right to blame IBM when Apple's problem is that the G4 didn't turn out to scale and perform like the CPU originally promised by Moto, and the only role IBM played is to develop a better PPC CPU as soon as it was apparent that Moto's G4 was a bust.
IBM was very ignorant to altivec! Read the comments from that time. IBM simply didn't care for Apple, otherwise they would have build G4. Apple probably had to pay a lot to convince IBM to develope the 970. There's no "saving" in there, simple business. The G4 itself is no bad cpu period. Mot's real problem is the fabbing and the management, which couldn't solve the problems. Mot did at least deliver, IBM didn't. Please no praise for 750 which has no simd whatsoever and therefore is outdated as hell. So if it's ok for IBM doing nothing for the ppc for 3 years than mot should be given the same opportunity. I really hope that mot gets their act together and finally start to push the ppc again. If the past years taught us anything then it's that relying on 1 supplier is dangerous.
So, in conclusion, IBM and Moto are both bad...so where does that leave Apple? I guess Apple either goes to AMD/Intel (both?), makes their own, or goes to someone else (Sun?, MIPS?).
I think Apple did made the right choice in going to PPC. The problem is neither IBM nor Moto was interested in making a pure desktop processor. Both companies had their reasons, and there is no point arguing who is worse or hurt Apple more. The point now is what does Apple do about it. I see the Moto development as positive, if Moto can really pull it off. The power requirements Moto is talking about are just fantastic, and will allow Apple to make some really cool gear. Apple also (appears) to have IBM, too - and not only that, but a chip that really is made for the desktop, and one which IBM should support, if for their own machines.
So, in conclusion, IBM and Moto are both bad...so where does that leave Apple? I guess Apple either goes to AMD/Intel (both?), makes their own, or goes to someone else (Sun?, MIPS?).
Well their not bad per se but both failed to achieve the original goal: twice the performance of x86 at half the price. Doesn't sound quite valid these days
Quote:
I think Apple did made the right choice in going to PPC. The problem is neither IBM nor Moto was interested in making a pure desktop processor. Both companies had their reasons, and there is no point arguing who is worse or hurt Apple more. The point now is what does Apple do about it. I see the Moto development as positive, if Moto can really pull it off. The power requirements Moto is talking about are just fantastic, and will allow Apple to make some really cool gear. Apple also (appears) to have IBM, too - and not only that, but a chip that really is made for the desktop, and one which IBM should support, if for their own machines.
I take it that your not too pleased w/ Motorola at this point.
I hope your saying this sarcastically, I believe in the long run it would be benefical, for both Apple and Motorola, if Motorola could continue to provide cpu's for Apple's needs. Something along the lines of the mythical MPC8540/MPC8560's but with a core designed for desktop use. I guess I'm disappointed w/ Motorola, but believe business' shouldn't hold a grudge.
We should hope that Motorola continues to improve the G4 even if/when Apple moves to the 9XX chips for the entire lineup. Why? Upgrades. There are a lot of machines out there that would benefit from newer CPU upgrades be they from Moto or IBMs discussed G3+.
Moto will be under a lot of pressure about pricing if the 9XX prices undercut Moto G4 pricing and also if G3 + prices are relative to the 9XX prices.
Moto will get better, they have to, tell ya why...
Lets say that a PPC970 returns better performance than a future G4, we're pretty much guaranteed that it will, but let's also say that a PPC970 gives enough "performance per watt" that it becomes an interesting option not just for servers and desktops but also for some of moto's high-end embedded customers? Mebbe not as spec'd by IBM, but down clocked so that they still deliver more overall performance than a G4 while consuming less power? That even opens an interesting possibility for IBM to seriously mark down "rejects" and sell them into the "cool, low-power embedded space" directly. 1-1.2Ghz PPC970's with lower core voltage, possibly pulled off the line from chips originally expected to perform at 1.5-1.8 or better?
That's what some people are hoping for the PB's. It makes some sense in that light, but I don't think the supply will be there for some time, and I do think that Moto will deliver a revised and very efficient G4 for the interm, and will probably "fix" their G5 problems if IBM starts threatening their "embedded" business. Hence the partnership with SMC. PPC is big money for moto, if IBM takes their Apple business and leaves their auto, telecom, embedded customers alone, that's one thing, but if IBM thinks it can grab a significant portion of those customers, then moto needs a response. They'll concede Apple, but not the PPC.
I want Apple to be forced to use a fast FSB in all Macs, because I don't trust them to use one by choice. Even though Apple has had no choice in FSB and memory speeds for years due to Moto, I fear what Apple will do when offered a choice.
Technically, Apple has had a choice this whole time, since the G4 supports the 60x bus (the same bus the G3 uses, and the 604/603/601 etc.) MaxBus is the better performing of the two alternatives, and Apple started clocking the bus higher than Mot advertized it in the last year or so.
That, and the bandwidth hurts, especially in Apple's numerics group. I watched a WWDC video of one of their advanced computation guys grumbling about bandwidth limitations. His subject was AltiVec acceleration, and when you're trying to pitch a piece of hardware that can chew through 12GB of data per second, a 1GB/sec bus to that data hurts. Badly.
Given all that, and the immense bandwidth requirements of the markets Apple's moving into, I expect that they're very much looking forward to moving to a faster bus ASAP.
IBM had no market, so they did not produce. Apple wasn't about to field a higher MHz G3 than G4 so there was no demand for a higher Mhz G3. IBM actually produced higher MHz G4's than Mot during the sub-contract phase to get past the 450/500 debacle and have lately been sitting on designs and tech to push a 750 over 1GHz. Pretty simple explanation actually.
Pretty simple explanation doesn't make it the truth, does it? Please show me any evidence the IBM was offering higher clocked G3s to anybody. Rumor != fact !
Quote:
IBM was Altivec blind for awhile, but the way it was oroiginally marketed made no sense to IBM. After non DSP apps and the OS started showing real Altivec usefulness IBM slowly came on board. Your assesment of business relationships is a bit off here though. And Mot really hasn't delivered since the intro of the G4, they missed on the intro, stalled for nearly 18 months and only recently started to rejoin the Moore's law curve (but not making up the difference).
If IBM had an alternative why didn't Apple use it? Why is it so hard to accept that IBM had nothing to offer? Why did IBM still sell 604e machines?
Quote:
Apple paid the price for betting on the G4 and marketing that specific processor as the high end exclusively. When it stalled, they had painted themselves into a corner that has taken the last couple years to get out of--something that requires a new processor--not a rebadging of anything that already existed.
Agreed and that's why it's bad to go supplier again.
Quote:
As for the rest, just so much misdirected emotion. It is dependent on already refuted arguments.
??? Please explain! Here on AI rumors become fact after certain time (like IBM producing faster G3s). I'm really willing to except that I'm wrong but not without a single prove. (no offence!)
Technically, Apple has had a choice this whole time, since the G4 supports the 60x bus (the same bus the G3 uses, and the 604/603/601 etc.) MaxBus is the better performing of the two alternatives, and Apple started clocking the bus higher than Mot advertized it in the last year or so.
That, and the bandwidth hurts, especially in Apple's numerics group. I watched a WWDC video of one of their advanced computation guys grumbling about bandwidth limitations. His subject was AltiVec acceleration, and when you're trying to pitch a piece of hardware that can chew through 12GB of data per second, a 1GB/sec bus to that data hurts. Badly.
Given all that, and the immense bandwidth requirements of the markets Apple's moving into, I expect that they're very much looking forward to moving to a faster bus ASAP.
Let's hope that Apple have made a rationalized, integrated design of the new machines the first time around instead of screwing up and putting old, old, out of date stuff (for which they undoubtedly paid premium prices) on supposedly new machines and abusing customers who have to make lemonade when confronted with a batch of lemons. Take for example the defective firewire implementations (not to mention the inability to boot off of external firewire devices on the B&W machines), bastardized PCI slots, PCI slots for graphics cards when AGP 4X had been published for some time, the lack of a second externally accessable 5 1/4 inch drive bay until just recently, the botched ATA controller chips and generally brain dead internal case layout. Well, you get the idea. Do a decent job the first time with this one guys.
I can't guarantee the exact date, but I believe IBM was offering the 1.0GHz G3 before Motorola reached 1.0GHz with the G4. Anywhoooo, this brochure proves that a 1.0GHz G3 is available and still hasn't appeared in an Apple Computer, which sort of in a back handed way proves that IBM could have pushed the G3 faster, but hasn't for obvious reasons.
The reason IBM still sells 604e-based machines is that they do multi-CPU much better than the G3. Many of the world's most powerful supercomputers are 604e or 603e based.
This will probably change with the introduction of the 970...I know IBM will replace its entry and mid level servers that currently run 604e s with PPC970s. That's a big reason why it was developed, and why it would have probably been developed even without Apple in the picture.
I can't guarantee the exact date, but I believe IBM was offering the 1.0GHz G3 before Motorola reached 1.0GHz with the G4. Anywhoooo, this brochure proves that a 1.0GHz G3 is available and still hasn't appeared in an Apple Computer, which sort of in a back handed way proves that IBM could have pushed the G3 faster, but hasn't for obvious reasons.
Where does it say IBM has G3s at 1Ghz now? They've always said the 750FX goes to 1Ghz. They said that in October 2001, before the chip had even been sold to anyone. That doesn't mean they had gotten there yet.
Comments
Originally posted by cuneglasus
I dont see what you mean.On all the processor intensive tests the 1.42 scores just about where it should relative to the 1.25.It does look like the drives are slower or something on the new machines.
The tests are done on the machines not necessarily the processors. I was speaking to the speed of the machines as they come from the factory.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Die, Moto', DIE!
Lemon Bon Bon
I take it that your not too pleased w/ Motorola at this point.
I hope your saying this sarcastically, I believe in the long run it would be benefical, for both Apple and Motorola, if Motorola could continue to provide cpu's for Apple's needs. Something along the lines of the mythical MPC8540/MPC8560's but with a core designed for desktop use. I guess I'm disappointed w/ Motorola, but believe business' shouldn't hold a grudge.
Originally posted by rickag
I believe in the long run it would be benefical, for both Apple and Motorola, if Motorola could continue to provide cpu's for Apple's needs. Something along the lines of the mythical MPC8540/MPC8560's but with a core designed for desktop use.
If IBM can produce the needed volume of CPUs to supply the Macintosh market why would it be beneficial to keep Motorola? Are you thinking it would lead to a price war on CPUs?
Just curious. I would think we'd want to send as much business IBM's way as possible.
How much does it cost to run an order of 970's thorugh the fab? From what I've read, that kind of production process is what the new plant is designed for.
The "cost" of the 970 will not be in the design of the chip, nor the price tag of the new foundry -- those costs are already on the books. So the "profit" of the 970 will be in selling the chips that they produce, which should be clear cut since Apple will place the orders and then purchase them.
It can't hurt to have 2 suppliers, as long as any motherboard differences aren't too expensive(one concern I have between the 970 and future G4's). Two large manufacturers devoting R&D in developing PPC tech would be beneficial in that different paths may lead to different, more effecient solutions, for example Altivec; IBM initially not impressed, now IBM sufficiently impressed(this may not be a good example, but I don't care.
Having both IBM(big iron/server) and Motorola(embedded) still designing processors for desktops also in my weird alternative universe reasoning means that the PPC architecture/ISA covers everything from embedded chips in autos, airplanes, routers, DSP's to mainframes and massively parallel computing, using fundamentally the same ISA or extensions of the ISA. How can this not be a good thing?
Competition between IBM and Motorola may become a good thing if Apple increases market share. There hasn't been any real competition between IBM & Motorola for Apples business, Motorola has been selling the G4 for the high end Apple computers, while IBM continued w/ the G3. IBM didn't push the envelope on the G3, I think, because there was not market - Motorola had it.
Also, it(having 2 large companies as suppliers) would mean that Apple is selling enough computers(re: a lot more than today) to keep 2 very large companies happy selling them processors, designed for desktops/servers. And every Mac zealot knows that would mean only one thing - world domination for the Mac
Really, if you look at it from Moto's standpoint, why should they spend a lot of resources on the G4 for Apple, when Apple did not have a second supplier to jump to. Apple didn't have a choice, and Moto knew it. (Of course, that totally ignores the poor business climate, but I think it still applies). Now Apple has someone else to supply them with processors, and Moto is feeling the heat - they either try to get in the game again and compete, or they fold up and go home. It is good for Apple, no question. The question is whether Moto can compete.
The timing of this is announcement is very interesting, isn't it?
Originally posted by User Tron
I don't see any sense in hoping that mot fails, the opposite sould be the case! We all should hope the mot and IBM are starting to compete again, it help the x86 so much that AMD is fighting Intel. If mot leaves the party and IBM does another "Somerset" the real trouble starts.
My fear is that IF Moto manages to offer a G4 that is better than today's iteration by a little bit, then Apple will take the bait and use it. End result: Mac users get inferior hardware.
I want Apple to be forced to use a fast FSB in all Macs, because I don't trust them to use one by choice. Even though Apple has had no choice in FSB and memory speeds for years due to Moto, I fear what Apple will do when offered a choice. Suppose you were shopping for stereos and your wife didn't trust you not to buy ultra-high end equipment (no adcom, NAD, McIntosh, B&W, etc.). So your wife goes with you, and she simply doesn't allow you to go to any specialty stereo shops, so you can't even LOOK at high end stereos. Well I want this to happen to Apple, but in reverse. I want someone to barricade Best Buy so Apple is forced to buy their home stereo at "Overture Audio" or the "Stereo Shoppe".
Thus, I don't want Moto to offer Apple the choice of using a G4 w/ 200 MHz FSB (no DDR support). I don't trust Apple to tell them to go to hell. I'd rather Moto offered them crap, and Apple had to use the PPC 970 in iMacs/iBooks because the only alternative was an antiquated, expensive G4.
I'm not putting Apple on a pedestal at all by blaming Motorola for the sorry state of Mac hardware.
As for blaming IBM, the key reason Apple hasn't used IBM chips in the high end is because Altivec support was more important than the extra MHz IBM could offer. Of course we don't know what sort of wheelin' and dealin' brought about the 970, but based on normal chip development times, it would seem that Apple went to IBM for a solution soon after after the G4 introduction debacle. If so, then the answer to "where has IBM been for the past 3 years", is actually, "IBM has been busy developing a CPU to save Apple from Moto's G4". I don't see how it would be right to blame IBM when Apple's problem is that the G4 didn't turn out to scale and perform like the CPU originally promised by Moto, and the only role IBM played is to develop a better PPC CPU as soon as it was apparent that Moto's G4 was a bust.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
My fear is that IF Moto manages to offer a G4 that is better than today's iteration by a little bit, then Apple will take the bait and use it. End result: Mac users get inferior hardware.
I want Apple to be forced to use a fast FSB in all Macs, because I don't trust them to use one by choice. Even though Apple has had no choice in FSB and memory speeds for years due to Moto, I fear what Apple will do when offered a choice.
Let's see what mot has to offer period. People here already claiming how much better the 970 will be comparing to all that mot had to offer. How con anybody know what's going to happen? I do know that mot failed in the last years but still telling the future by the past is a heurism!
As for blaming IBM, the key reason Apple hasn't used IBM chips in the high end is because Altivec support was more important than the extra MHz IBM could offer.
Which extra mhz? This is a classical internet myth. IBM didn't offer faster PPC CPUs than Mot at any time! They had various prototypes at higher speed but no real product. Look at the power4 and their mhz! Keep in mind they're low volume series.
Of course we don't know what sort of wheelin' and dealin' brought about the 970, but based on normal chip development times, it would seem that Apple went to IBM for a solution soon after after the G4 introduction debacle. If so, then the answer to "where has IBM been for the past 3 years", is actually, "IBM has been busy developing a CPU to save Apple from Moto's G4". I don't see how it would be right to blame IBM when Apple's problem is that the G4 didn't turn out to scale and perform like the CPU originally promised by Moto, and the only role IBM played is to develop a better PPC CPU as soon as it was apparent that Moto's G4 was a bust.
IBM was very ignorant to altivec! Read the comments from that time. IBM simply didn't care for Apple, otherwise they would have build G4. Apple probably had to pay a lot to convince IBM to develope the 970. There's no "saving" in there, simple business. The G4 itself is no bad cpu period. Mot's real problem is the fabbing and the management, which couldn't solve the problems. Mot did at least deliver, IBM didn't. Please no praise for 750 which has no simd whatsoever and therefore is outdated as hell. So if it's ok for IBM doing nothing for the ppc for 3 years than mot should be given the same opportunity. I really hope that mot gets their act together and finally start to push the ppc again. If the past years taught us anything then it's that relying on 1 supplier is dangerous.
End of Line
I think Apple did made the right choice in going to PPC. The problem is neither IBM nor Moto was interested in making a pure desktop processor. Both companies had their reasons, and there is no point arguing who is worse or hurt Apple more. The point now is what does Apple do about it. I see the Moto development as positive, if Moto can really pull it off. The power requirements Moto is talking about are just fantastic, and will allow Apple to make some really cool gear. Apple also (appears) to have IBM, too - and not only that, but a chip that really is made for the desktop, and one which IBM should support, if for their own machines.
Originally posted by Thai Moof
Well their not bad per se but both failed to achieve the original goal: twice the performance of x86 at half the price. Doesn't sound quite valid these days
I think Apple did made the right choice in going to PPC. The problem is neither IBM nor Moto was interested in making a pure desktop processor. Both companies had their reasons, and there is no point arguing who is worse or hurt Apple more. The point now is what does Apple do about it. I see the Moto development as positive, if Moto can really pull it off. The power requirements Moto is talking about are just fantastic, and will allow Apple to make some really cool gear. Apple also (appears) to have IBM, too - and not only that, but a chip that really is made for the desktop, and one which IBM should support, if for their own machines.
100% agreed. To have choices is good.
End of Line
Originally posted by rickag
I take it that your not too pleased w/ Motorola at this point.
I hope your saying this sarcastically, I believe in the long run it would be benefical, for both Apple and Motorola, if Motorola could continue to provide cpu's for Apple's needs. Something along the lines of the mythical MPC8540/MPC8560's but with a core designed for desktop use. I guess I'm disappointed w/ Motorola, but believe business' shouldn't hold a grudge.
We should hope that Motorola continues to improve the G4 even if/when Apple moves to the 9XX chips for the entire lineup. Why? Upgrades. There are a lot of machines out there that would benefit from newer CPU upgrades be they from Moto or IBMs discussed G3+.
Moto will be under a lot of pressure about pricing if the 9XX prices undercut Moto G4 pricing and also if G3 + prices are relative to the 9XX prices.
Lets say that a PPC970 returns better performance than a future G4, we're pretty much guaranteed that it will, but let's also say that a PPC970 gives enough "performance per watt" that it becomes an interesting option not just for servers and desktops but also for some of moto's high-end embedded customers? Mebbe not as spec'd by IBM, but down clocked so that they still deliver more overall performance than a G4 while consuming less power? That even opens an interesting possibility for IBM to seriously mark down "rejects" and sell them into the "cool, low-power embedded space" directly. 1-1.2Ghz PPC970's with lower core voltage, possibly pulled off the line from chips originally expected to perform at 1.5-1.8 or better?
That's what some people are hoping for the PB's. It makes some sense in that light, but I don't think the supply will be there for some time, and I do think that Moto will deliver a revised and very efficient G4 for the interm, and will probably "fix" their G5 problems if IBM starts threatening their "embedded" business. Hence the partnership with SMC. PPC is big money for moto, if IBM takes their Apple business and leaves their auto, telecom, embedded customers alone, that's one thing, but if IBM thinks it can grab a significant portion of those customers, then moto needs a response. They'll concede Apple, but not the PPC.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
I want Apple to be forced to use a fast FSB in all Macs, because I don't trust them to use one by choice. Even though Apple has had no choice in FSB and memory speeds for years due to Moto, I fear what Apple will do when offered a choice.
Technically, Apple has had a choice this whole time, since the G4 supports the 60x bus (the same bus the G3 uses, and the 604/603/601 etc.) MaxBus is the better performing of the two alternatives, and Apple started clocking the bus higher than Mot advertized it in the last year or so.
That, and the bandwidth hurts, especially in Apple's numerics group. I watched a WWDC video of one of their advanced computation guys grumbling about bandwidth limitations. His subject was AltiVec acceleration, and when you're trying to pitch a piece of hardware that can chew through 12GB of data per second, a 1GB/sec bus to that data hurts. Badly.
Given all that, and the immense bandwidth requirements of the markets Apple's moving into, I expect that they're very much looking forward to moving to a faster bus ASAP.
Originally posted by AirSluf
IBM had no market, so they did not produce. Apple wasn't about to field a higher MHz G3 than G4 so there was no demand for a higher Mhz G3. IBM actually produced higher MHz G4's than Mot during the sub-contract phase to get past the 450/500 debacle and have lately been sitting on designs and tech to push a 750 over 1GHz. Pretty simple explanation actually.
Pretty simple explanation doesn't make it the truth, does it? Please show me any evidence the IBM was offering higher clocked G3s to anybody. Rumor != fact !
IBM was Altivec blind for awhile, but the way it was oroiginally marketed made no sense to IBM. After non DSP apps and the OS started showing real Altivec usefulness IBM slowly came on board. Your assesment of business relationships is a bit off here though. And Mot really hasn't delivered since the intro of the G4, they missed on the intro, stalled for nearly 18 months and only recently started to rejoin the Moore's law curve (but not making up the difference).
If IBM had an alternative why didn't Apple use it? Why is it so hard to accept that IBM had nothing to offer? Why did IBM still sell 604e machines?
Apple paid the price for betting on the G4 and marketing that specific processor as the high end exclusively. When it stalled, they had painted themselves into a corner that has taken the last couple years to get out of--something that requires a new processor--not a rebadging of anything that already existed.
Agreed and that's why it's bad to go supplier again.
As for the rest, just so much misdirected emotion. It is dependent on already refuted arguments.
??? Please explain! Here on AI rumors become fact after certain time (like IBM producing faster G3s). I'm really willing to except that I'm wrong but not without a single prove. (no offence!)
End of Line
Originally posted by Amorph
Technically, Apple has had a choice this whole time, since the G4 supports the 60x bus (the same bus the G3 uses, and the 604/603/601 etc.) MaxBus is the better performing of the two alternatives, and Apple started clocking the bus higher than Mot advertized it in the last year or so.
That, and the bandwidth hurts, especially in Apple's numerics group. I watched a WWDC video of one of their advanced computation guys grumbling about bandwidth limitations. His subject was AltiVec acceleration, and when you're trying to pitch a piece of hardware that can chew through 12GB of data per second, a 1GB/sec bus to that data hurts. Badly.
Given all that, and the immense bandwidth requirements of the markets Apple's moving into, I expect that they're very much looking forward to moving to a faster bus ASAP.
Let's hope that Apple have made a rationalized, integrated design of the new machines the first time around instead of screwing up and putting old, old, out of date stuff (for which they undoubtedly paid premium prices) on supposedly new machines and abusing customers who have to make lemonade when confronted with a batch of lemons. Take for example the defective firewire implementations (not to mention the inability to boot off of external firewire devices on the B&W machines), bastardized PCI slots, PCI slots for graphics cards when AGP 4X had been published for some time, the lack of a second externally accessable 5 1/4 inch drive bay until just recently, the botched ATA controller chips and generally brain dead internal case layout. Well, you get the idea. Do a decent job the first time with this one guys.
Originally posted by User Tron
Please show me any evidence the IBM was offering higher clocked G3s to anybody.
IBM Sales Brochure from 2002
I can't guarantee the exact date, but I believe IBM was offering the 1.0GHz G3 before Motorola reached 1.0GHz with the G4. Anywhoooo, this brochure proves that a 1.0GHz G3 is available and still hasn't appeared in an Apple Computer, which sort of in a back handed way proves that IBM could have pushed the G3 faster, but hasn't for obvious reasons.
This will probably change with the introduction of the 970...I know IBM will replace its entry and mid level servers that currently run 604e s with PPC970s. That's a big reason why it was developed, and why it would have probably been developed even without Apple in the picture.
Originally posted by rickag
IBM Sales Brochure from 2002
I can't guarantee the exact date, but I believe IBM was offering the 1.0GHz G3 before Motorola reached 1.0GHz with the G4. Anywhoooo, this brochure proves that a 1.0GHz G3 is available and still hasn't appeared in an Apple Computer, which sort of in a back handed way proves that IBM could have pushed the G3 faster, but hasn't for obvious reasons.
Where does it say IBM has G3s at 1Ghz now? They've always said the 750FX goes to 1Ghz. They said that in October 2001, before the chip had even been sold to anyone. That doesn't mean they had gotten there yet.