<strong>It seems as if IBM (and hopefully/maybe Apple) wanted this information released to counteract the analyst who commented that Apple will be switching to X86 soon. If apple honestly has no plans to switch to X86 ever, it would be in their best interest to destroy any rumors that say otherwise. Apple does not need customers putting off purchases because they think Apple will eventually switch. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't say switch -- Apple wants customers to switch to the Mac -- Apple wants to have options, not to switch. If they do come out with an x86 line, you can bet your bottom dollar there will also be a kick-ass PPC line of Macs as well.
Exactly. Or you might never see the x86-based Macs -- many contingency projects never see the light of day. People who claim "Apple will never go to x86" are ignoring that Apple *has* ported their OS to x86 -- a project code-named Star Trek years go. It was just never completed or released.
This one, on the other hand, stands a much better chance, IMHO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont think that we will see a PPC and X86 implementation of the Mac OS at the same time. This would be a lot of work for Apple's development team's QAing the OS of both platforms at the same time. It would also be a lot of work to ask of the developers, who would have to at least recompile their programs for both hardware platforms. Lets not even mention the development time and cost added to the hardware.
Apple spends a lot on R&D. They make that cost up over the life of a system. The UMS design allows them to spread a lot of the archetectural R&D costs over both the Pro and consumer lines of both desktop and portable computers. Yes they are refined for each system, and the Pro versions are higher performance, but the chip sets and basic design is the same.
I think that the X86/PPC move would be too costly in the the short and long run. If they move away from the PPC it will be in both the Pro and Consumer lines, though the Pro may make the move first, the consumer lines will move over within a year.
<strong>It seems as if IBM (and hopefully/maybe Apple) wanted this information released to counteract the analyst who commented that Apple will be switching to X86 soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unlikely. Microprocessor Forum is a pretty major conference, and IBM would have had to submit their conference papers several months ago. This has been in the pipeline for quite a while.
I really have no idea -- I'd just be guessing -- 9 months to a year maybe? Knowing what is going on in general is easy -- specifics of when products are going to be released, etc. -- anyone who knows that would be under serious NDA (and the truth is, release cycles are not set in stone anyway).
I will say that IBM has been working on this for some time (obviously -- things like new microprocessors don't just appear). Nice that they have a spiffy new plant in which to produce them, too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moki, thanks for the reply.
Can I conclude from your response that it unquestionably will not be in next week's (or whenever) new powermacs?
Another deciding factor is how hard is it going to be for developers to support a 64bit chip. Altough we do not know if this chip will have backward 32bit compatibility I assume it will not because it is based on the power 4.
Also many of you seem to assume that this will go into a a comparable powermac line however i don't understand how they could base a chip on the Power 4 and have it be as cost effective as the G4. Perhaps these will only be available at first in a new line of even SuperPowerMacs that will be in a higher price bracket than the current ones.
also Apple has hinted for over a year to some developers to expect quad based computers and to prepare your code (notice how motu advertised digital performer 3.0 last summer having the ability to take advantage of more than dual proccessors.)
Would apple or anyone for that matter consider a dual processor with dual cores a quad processor?
<strong>Another deciding factor is how hard is it going to be for developers to support a 64bit chip. Altough we do not know if this chip will have backward 32bit compatibility I assume it will not because it is based on the power 4.
Also many of you seem to assume that this will go into a a comparable powermac line however i don't understand how they could base a chip on the Power 4 and have it be as cost effective as the G4. Perhaps these will only be available at first in a new line of even SuperPowerMacs that will be in a higher price bracket than the current ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay... lets look at this with some logic...
The short:
If this new CPU isn't backward compatible then Apple ain't gonna use it...
The long:
If Apple were to make use of this chip in the future PowerMac's it WILL be backward compatible with what we have now... No if's and or buts!!! Apple just got done getting their developers to move to X ain't no way they are gonna be in a position to get them to support YAC (yet another cpu)... Supporting 9 & X is one thing (and that was hard enough to pull off) but going back to them and say... Oh yea now please support X and X+G5 and as for 9 kill it if ya like...
Sorry but this ain't gonna happen. I'm the 1st to say X is the BEST but I also know the 'business of computers' and we still have a ways to go before X is king when it comes to 'seats'.
As for cost... this CPU is NOT gonna be G4 cheap... EVERYONE should get that idea outta their heads right this second. This CPU is based on the Power4 and if Apple is gonna use it the cost will be higher.
This could be the first time we see 'GOOD' 'BETTER' 'BEST' really MEAN SOMETHING in both PRICE as well as PERFORMANCE.
Wanna play with the pros your gonna have to pay for it.
TANSTAAFL (look it up if you need to) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>also Apple has hinted for over a year to some developers to expect quad based computers and to prepare your code (notice how motu advertised digital performer 3.0 last summer having the ability to take advantage of more than dual proccessors.)
Would apple or anyone for that matter consider a dual processor with dual cores a quad processor?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont know if Apple could/would advertise it as a Quad processor, but that is essentially what it is. A dual core processor is two processors on one piece of silicone, and would work in parallel. So 2 dual core processors would be the same as 4 processors. The main advantave is that the on die processors would communicate better than a standard dual set up since they are closer together, and the circutry is build in to the same die. but I think a more likely scenerio would be for Apple to drop the main powermac line back to 1 processor with dual cores, and save the dual/dual set up for a workstation/server market.
heh -- yeah, I think it is a pretty safe bet that you won't be seeing them for a while. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I just hope in the next 9-12 months, this chip doesn't disappear the way the G5 did. Based on the rumors and articles I read, I really thought we'd be using G5's at this point in time. I find it troubling that there may be another year or so wait for a next generation ppc processor (although it sure looks like it's worth it).
Well, I just hope in the next 9-12 months, this chip doesn't disappear the way the G5 did. Based on the rumors and articles I read, I really thought we'd be using G5's at this point in time. I find it troubling that there may be another year or so wait for a next generation ppc processor (although it sure looks like it's worth it).</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is not Motorola. The writing was on the wall re: Motorola quite some time ago; people who were expecting the "G5" to be released at the last expo, and the expo before that, and the expo before that, and the expo before that... well, I want some of what they were smoking.
This doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple just skip a number, like going from a g4 to a g6, without using g5. If there is no g5 its because they will change names. Think about it.
Comparatively speaking it would be like Intel skipping p5 and calling their next processor a p6. Common sense says "IT doesn't make any sense!"
<strong>This doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple just skip a number, like going from a g4 to a g6, without using g5. If there is no g5 its because they will change names. Think about it.
Comparatively speaking it would be like Intel skipping p5 and calling their next processor a p6. Common sense says "IT doesn't make any sense!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're just confused by how people use the term "G5". The mention of it above was in reference to a Motorola built next generation processor -- that will never materialize and Moki claims that it should have been obvious all along (to those of us without inside information, however, it wasn't so obvious). If (when) Apple gets a next generation processor from IBM, as now seems likely, they will probably call it a G5 or go with an entirely new naming convention. It will still be a 5th generation PowerPC, however.
I think you're just confused by how people use the term "G5". The mention of it above was in reference to a Motorola built next generation processor -- that will never materialize and Moki claims that it should have been obvious all along (to those of us without inside information, however, it wasn't so obvious). </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I just meant that in terms of Motorola's focus on embedded processors, scaling back of the Microprocessor division, and inability to crank out higher clockspeed G4's... the writing was on the wall -- they weren't going to suddenly release some killer processor.
Motorola wants to do embedded processors and cell phones.
[quote]also Apple has hinted for over a year to some developers to expect quad based computers<hr></blockquote>
For quads to be viable Apple would need an improved frontside bus. At the moment all of the G4 CPUs share a 133Mhz, 64bit wide bus. A bump to 166MHz is insufficient for quads.
[quote]As for cost... this CPU is NOT gonna be G4 cheap... EVERYONE should get that idea outta their heads right this second. This CPU is based on the Power4 and if Apple is gonna use it the cost will be higher.<hr></blockquote>
This CPU is unlikely to be Power4+. Power4 costs a sack o' cash because it has huge L3 cache, large L2 cache, has several complex cores and I'd guess that IBM don't sell many (compared to desktop processors), so they need to recoup their R&D. I'd assume that IBM know what they're doing wrt pricing and the target market, desktop CPUs.
For all we know, the Power4 and "Power5" CPUs could be as different as the 601 and 604e. Also, Apple can't raise Mac prices much unless they have truly kicks ass performance.
"Well, I just meant that in terms of Motorola's focus on embedded processors, scaling back of the Microprocessor division, and inability to crank out higher clockspeed G4's... the writing was on the wall -- they weren't going to suddenly release some killer processor."
<strong>Also many of you seem to assume that this will go into a a comparable powermac line however i don't understand how they could base a chip on the Power 4 and have it be as cost effective as the G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Regardless what it is based on--and technology generally flows from hi-end to consumer space-- it is a PowerPC--not a POWER4, note that "PC" part, like in "Personal Computer"--, so obviously it's been developed with a very particular market in mind. In the end it might be--and probably will--a bit more expensive than a regular G4, but I think it's unlikely that the price delta will be so large so as to justify the intro of a completely new, separate product line...
No inside info, just trying to make some educated guesses...
Regardless what it is based on--and technology generally flows from hi-end to consumer space-- it is a PowerPC--not a POWER4, note that "PC" part, like in "Personal Computer"--, so obviously it's been developed with a very particular market in mind. In the end it might be--and probably will--a bit more expensive than a regular G4, but I think it's unlikely that the price delta will be so large so as to justify the intro of a completely new, separate product line...
No inside info, just trying to make some educated guesses...
Comments
<strong>It seems as if IBM (and hopefully/maybe Apple) wanted this information released to counteract the analyst who commented that Apple will be switching to X86 soon. If apple honestly has no plans to switch to X86 ever, it would be in their best interest to destroy any rumors that say otherwise. Apple does not need customers putting off purchases because they think Apple will eventually switch. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't say switch -- Apple wants customers to switch to the Mac -- Apple wants to have options, not to switch. If they do come out with an x86 line, you can bet your bottom dollar there will also be a kick-ass PPC line of Macs as well.
<strong>
Exactly. Or you might never see the x86-based Macs -- many contingency projects never see the light of day. People who claim "Apple will never go to x86" are ignoring that Apple *has* ported their OS to x86 -- a project code-named Star Trek years go. It was just never completed or released.
This one, on the other hand, stands a much better chance, IMHO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont think that we will see a PPC and X86 implementation of the Mac OS at the same time. This would be a lot of work for Apple's development team's QAing the OS of both platforms at the same time. It would also be a lot of work to ask of the developers, who would have to at least recompile their programs for both hardware platforms. Lets not even mention the development time and cost added to the hardware.
Apple spends a lot on R&D. They make that cost up over the life of a system. The UMS design allows them to spread a lot of the archetectural R&D costs over both the Pro and consumer lines of both desktop and portable computers. Yes they are refined for each system, and the Pro versions are higher performance, but the chip sets and basic design is the same.
I think that the X86/PPC move would be too costly in the the short and long run. If they move away from the PPC it will be in both the Pro and Consumer lines, though the Pro may make the move first, the consumer lines will move over within a year.
<strong>It seems as if IBM (and hopefully/maybe Apple) wanted this information released to counteract the analyst who commented that Apple will be switching to X86 soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unlikely. Microprocessor Forum is a pretty major conference, and IBM would have had to submit their conference papers several months ago. This has been in the pipeline for quite a while.
<strong>
I really have no idea -- I'd just be guessing -- 9 months to a year maybe? Knowing what is going on in general is easy -- specifics of when products are going to be released, etc. -- anyone who knows that would be under serious NDA (and the truth is, release cycles are not set in stone anyway).
I will say that IBM has been working on this for some time (obviously -- things like new microprocessors don't just appear). Nice that they have a spiffy new plant in which to produce them, too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moki, thanks for the reply.
Can I conclude from your response that it unquestionably will not be in next week's (or whenever) new powermacs?
Also many of you seem to assume that this will go into a a comparable powermac line however i don't understand how they could base a chip on the Power 4 and have it be as cost effective as the G4. Perhaps these will only be available at first in a new line of even SuperPowerMacs that will be in a higher price bracket than the current ones.
Would apple or anyone for that matter consider a dual processor with dual cores a quad processor?
<strong>Another deciding factor is how hard is it going to be for developers to support a 64bit chip. Altough we do not know if this chip will have backward 32bit compatibility I assume it will not because it is based on the power 4.
Also many of you seem to assume that this will go into a a comparable powermac line however i don't understand how they could base a chip on the Power 4 and have it be as cost effective as the G4. Perhaps these will only be available at first in a new line of even SuperPowerMacs that will be in a higher price bracket than the current ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay... lets look at this with some logic...
The short:
If this new CPU isn't backward compatible then Apple ain't gonna use it...
The long:
If Apple were to make use of this chip in the future PowerMac's it WILL be backward compatible with what we have now... No if's and or buts!!! Apple just got done getting their developers to move to X ain't no way they are gonna be in a position to get them to support YAC (yet another cpu)... Supporting 9 & X is one thing (and that was hard enough to pull off) but going back to them and say... Oh yea now please support X and X+G5 and as for 9 kill it if ya like...
Sorry but this ain't gonna happen. I'm the 1st to say X is the BEST but I also know the 'business of computers' and we still have a ways to go before X is king when it comes to 'seats'.
As for cost... this CPU is NOT gonna be G4 cheap... EVERYONE should get that idea outta their heads right this second. This CPU is based on the Power4 and if Apple is gonna use it the cost will be higher.
This could be the first time we see 'GOOD' 'BETTER' 'BEST' really MEAN SOMETHING in both PRICE as well as PERFORMANCE.
Wanna play with the pros your gonna have to pay for it.
TANSTAAFL (look it up if you need to) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dave
<strong>also Apple has hinted for over a year to some developers to expect quad based computers and to prepare your code (notice how motu advertised digital performer 3.0 last summer having the ability to take advantage of more than dual proccessors.)
Would apple or anyone for that matter consider a dual processor with dual cores a quad processor?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont know if Apple could/would advertise it as a Quad processor, but that is essentially what it is. A dual core processor is two processors on one piece of silicone, and would work in parallel. So 2 dual core processors would be the same as 4 processors. The main advantave is that the on die processors would communicate better than a standard dual set up since they are closer together, and the circutry is build in to the same die. but I think a more likely scenerio would be for Apple to drop the main powermac line back to 1 processor with dual cores, and save the dual/dual set up for a workstation/server market.
<strong>Can I conclude from your response that it unquestionably will not be in next week's (or whenever) new powermacs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
heh -- yeah, I think it is a pretty safe bet that you won't be seeing them for a while.
<strong>
heh -- yeah, I think it is a pretty safe bet that you won't be seeing them for a while.
Well, I just hope in the next 9-12 months, this chip doesn't disappear the way the G5 did. Based on the rumors and articles I read, I really thought we'd be using G5's at this point in time. I find it troubling that there may be another year or so wait for a next generation ppc processor (although it sure looks like it's worth it).
<strong>
Well, I just hope in the next 9-12 months, this chip doesn't disappear the way the G5 did. Based on the rumors and articles I read, I really thought we'd be using G5's at this point in time. I find it troubling that there may be another year or so wait for a next generation ppc processor (although it sure looks like it's worth it).</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is not Motorola. The writing was on the wall re: Motorola quite some time ago; people who were expecting the "G5" to be released at the last expo, and the expo before that, and the expo before that, and the expo before that... well, I want some of what they were smoking.
Comparatively speaking it would be like Intel skipping p5 and calling their next processor a p6. Common sense says "IT doesn't make any sense!"
<strong>This doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple just skip a number, like going from a g4 to a g6, without using g5. If there is no g5 its because they will change names. Think about it.
Comparatively speaking it would be like Intel skipping p5 and calling their next processor a p6. Common sense says "IT doesn't make any sense!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're just confused by how people use the term "G5". The mention of it above was in reference to a Motorola built next generation processor -- that will never materialize and Moki claims that it should have been obvious all along (to those of us without inside information, however, it wasn't so obvious). If (when) Apple gets a next generation processor from IBM, as now seems likely, they will probably call it a G5 or go with an entirely new naming convention. It will still be a 5th generation PowerPC, however.
<strong>
I think you're just confused by how people use the term "G5". The mention of it above was in reference to a Motorola built next generation processor -- that will never materialize and Moki claims that it should have been obvious all along (to those of us without inside information, however, it wasn't so obvious). </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I just meant that in terms of Motorola's focus on embedded processors, scaling back of the Microprocessor division, and inability to crank out higher clockspeed G4's... the writing was on the wall -- they weren't going to suddenly release some killer processor.
Motorola wants to do embedded processors and cell phones.
<strong>Motorola wants to do embedded processors and cell phones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which, of course, is better than developing a uber-desktop-G5, going bancrupt and leaving Apple without a G4 supplier..
For quads to be viable Apple would need an improved frontside bus. At the moment all of the G4 CPUs share a 133Mhz, 64bit wide bus. A bump to 166MHz is insufficient for quads.
[quote]As for cost... this CPU is NOT gonna be G4 cheap... EVERYONE should get that idea outta their heads right this second. This CPU is based on the Power4 and if Apple is gonna use it the cost will be higher.<hr></blockquote>
This CPU is unlikely to be Power4+. Power4 costs a sack o' cash because it has huge L3 cache, large L2 cache, has several complex cores and I'd guess that IBM don't sell many (compared to desktop processors), so they need to recoup their R&D. I'd assume that IBM know what they're doing wrt pricing and the target market, desktop CPUs.
For all we know, the Power4 and "Power5" CPUs could be as different as the 601 and 604e. Also, Apple can't raise Mac prices much unless they have truly kicks ass performance.
[ 08-09-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Also many of you seem to assume that this will go into a a comparable powermac line however i don't understand how they could base a chip on the Power 4 and have it be as cost effective as the G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Regardless what it is based on--and technology generally flows from hi-end to consumer space-- it is a PowerPC--not a POWER4, note that "PC" part, like in "Personal Computer"--, so obviously it's been developed with a very particular market in mind. In the end it might be--and probably will--a bit more expensive than a regular G4, but I think it's unlikely that the price delta will be so large so as to justify the intro of a completely new, separate product line...
No inside info, just trying to make some educated guesses...
ZoSo
<strong>
Regardless what it is based on--and technology generally flows from hi-end to consumer space-- it is a PowerPC--not a POWER4, note that "PC" part, like in "Personal Computer"--, so obviously it's been developed with a very particular market in mind. In the end it might be--and probably will--a bit more expensive than a regular G4, but I think it's unlikely that the price delta will be so large so as to justify the intro of a completely new, separate product line...
No inside info, just trying to make some educated guesses...
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
PowerPC = Power Performance Chip !
End of Line